Hi Thomas, > 2009/10/6 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Remy Bohmer wrote: >> > But I was wondering if you missed this one: >> > http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/50044/ >> >> Yup, slipped through. Queued for the next release. > > Correction. I dropped the patch as it is just a sloppy work around. > Why creating the thread in the first place ? Real fix below. Yeah, I thought about that too. > > Thanks, > > tglx > --- > diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c > index aae8d45..3526976 100644 > --- a/kernel/softirq.c > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c > @@ -1161,6 +1161,8 @@ static int __cpuinit cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, > per_cpu(ksoftirqd, hotcpu)[i].tsk = NULL; > } > for (i = 0; i < NR_SOFTIRQS; i++) { > + if (!softirq_names[i]) > + continue; But I did not do this because I thought this was sloppy as well, I guessed you would never accept a patch that only looks at defining the name, how wrong could I be... ;-) So, going for the cleaner solution, I was going for not defining the HRTIMER_SOFTIRQ in the enum in include/linux/interrupt.h in the first place, but that would touch even more code, and at least that makes clear how much the code is strangled. The loop 'for (i = 0; i < NR_SOFTIRQS; i++)' is used at many more places, would this 'if (!softirq_names[i])' not be required at other places as well? Remy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
