On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 00:05 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > peter_zijlstra-frob-rcu.patch
> >
> > Looks OK. Hmmm... Should this one go to mainline?
> > Oh, looks equivalent, actually. So why the change?
>
> Peter ?
- if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
+ if (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)) {
For !rt its equivalent yes, for rt otoh its not:
int in_serving_softirq(void)
{
int res;
preempt_disable();
res = __get_cpu_var(local_softirq_runner) == current;
preempt_enable();
return res;
}
However invoke_softirq() will still add SOFTIRQ_OFFSET so we need to
look at that to avoid recursion issues.
The changelog describes this. So this change is a direct consequence of
-rt frobbing the softirq stuff and thus isn't needed upstream.
--
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
