On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:01:59 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Paul? > > Looks plausible to me, though I don't understand why the introduction > of trace() doesn't permit removal of the corresponding current code. > (Or did I miss a previous patch that did just that?) > I removed the trace_*_rcuidle() code, but this file still used it. I didn't realize that removing the trace_*_rcuidle() in this file would break other architectures. This patch is a work around to not need to re-introduce the trace_*_rcuidle() code. -- Steve
