Message-ID: <41AA0C98.204B19CA@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:36:24 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dipankar@in.ibm.com
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: cosmetic, delete wrong comment, use HARDIRQ_OFFSET
References: <41A9E98C.2C1D07EF@tv-sign.ru> <20041128151925.GA20894@in.ibm.com> <41A9EDB7.8020304@colorfullife.com> <20041128154227.GC20894@in.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 731
Lines: 19

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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/