On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 06:23:24PM +0200, Benjamin Bara wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 at 16:54, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > For the !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT case, preemptible() is defined 0. So, > > don't we lose the irqs_disabled() check in that case? > > Thanks for the feedback! > PREEMPT_COUNT is selected by PREEMPTION, so I guess in the case of > !PREEMPT_COUNT, > we should be atomic (anyways)? Could you make sure please? Asking Peter Zijlstra might be a good idea. He helped me with the current implementation.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
