On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 01:24:46PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:43:49 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Robot reported that trace_hardirqs_{on,off}() tickle the forbidden
> > _rcuidle() tracepoint through local_irq_{en,dis}able().
> >
> > For 'sane' configs, these calls will only happen with RCU enabled and
> > as such can use the regular tracepoint. This also means it's possible
> > to trace them from NMI context again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The code looks good to me. I just have a question about comment.
>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > @@ -20,6 +20,15 @@
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, tracing_irq_cpu);
> >
> > /*
> > + * ...
>
> Is this intended? Wouldn't you leave any comment here?
I indeed forgot to write the comment before posting, my bad :/ Ingo fixed
it up when he applied.
