On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 10:36 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:31 +0800, Wei.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Wei Yang <Wei.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > In case of RT kernel, the return value of softirq_count() always > > equal to 0, we need to use in_serving_softirq to decide whether > > the current context is in softirq context. > > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(softirq_count() == 0); > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_serving_softirq()); > > As I understand the code, I don't believe this change to be correct. The > function can happily run with softirqs disabled (e.g. > local_bh_disable()), for example by being called via ieee80211_rx_ni(). > As I understand in_serving_softirq(), it checks that it's actually > inside handling a softirq, no? Arguably, it should be WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); but that's equivalent: include/linux/hardirq.h * in_softirq - Are we currently processing softirq or have bh disabled? #define in_softirq() (softirq_count()) johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
