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

[Oleg Nesterov]

Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> 
> Hmm. I agree with Manfred.  hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT)
> was the test I arrived at since it was most explicit - One level
> of (local timer) interrupt over idle task and no softirq in between
> is OK to indicate that the cpu had seen an idle task. A bigger
> hardirq_count() indicates reentrant hardirq over idle task and we
> are no longer safe.
> 
> So, let's drop the HARDIRQ_OFFSET change.

Ok. I am resending these two patches in one.

Oleg.
-
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/