I don't see a reason why softirq_count() shouldn't reflect the fact that we are within a local_bh_disable() section. I *think* it was done primary because in RT the softirq is slightly different (and preemptible) and it broke some of RCU's assumptions. I don't see any fallout with this change. Furthermore, all checks like "WARN_ON(!softirq_count())" will work and we can drop the workaround we currently have in the queue. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- include/linux/preempt.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h index 0591df500e9d..d8c05a2626ca 100644 --- a/include/linux/preempt.h +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ # define softirq_count() (preempt_count() & SOFTIRQ_MASK) # define in_serving_softirq() (softirq_count() & SOFTIRQ_OFFSET) #else -# define softirq_count() (0UL) +# define softirq_count() (current->softirq_nestcnt) extern int in_serving_softirq(void); #endif -- 2.17.0 -- 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
