On 10/19/2011 11:23 AM, Alex,Shi wrote: > > Well do the obvious (where you can see that interrupts or preemption are > > disabled in the function or in a calling function). Leave the rest as is > > and provide separate patches for them? > > Thanks for comments! I initialized the patch as following accordingly, > And cc to more maintainers for review. I checked all code except xen/kvm > part, totally a idiot for them. > > > > ========== > > Since percpu_xxx() serial functions are duplicate with this_cpu_xxx(). > Removing percpu_xxx() definition and replacing them by this_cpu_xxx() in > code. > > And further more, as Christoph Lameter's requirement, I try to use > __this_cpu_xx to replace this_cpu_xxx if it is in preempt safe scenario. > The preempt safe scenarios include: > 1, in irq/softirq/nmi handler > 2, protected by preempt_disable > 3, protected by spin_lock > 4, if the code context imply that it is preempt safe, like the code is > follows or be followed a preempt safe code. > > I left the xen/kvm part code unchanged, since no any idea of them. > > All of the kvm usage is in preemption disabled contexts. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
