Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: cosmetic, delete wrong comment, use HARDIRQ_OFFSET

[Manfred Spraul]

Dipankar Sarma wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 06:06:52PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>  
>
> > Afaics, this comment is misleading. rcu_check_quiescent_state()
> > is executed in softirq context, while rcu_check_callbacks() checks
> > in_softirq() before ++qsctr.
> >
> > Also, replace (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT) by HARDIRQ_OFFSET.
> >
> >    
>
> Looks good to me. IIRC, that comment has been around since very
> early prototypes, so it is probably leftover trash.
>
>  
I agree. I think I only moved it around.
But I don't like the HARDIRQ_OFFSET change. If I understand the code 
correctly it checks that there is no hardirq reentrancy, i.e. the count 
is 0 or 1. Shifted to the appropriate position for the actual test.
I'd either leave it as it is or use "1*HARDIRQ_OFFSET" - otherwise the 
information that the count should be less of equal one is lost.

--
   Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/