Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 07:59:16 +0800
From:   Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc:     Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] preempt: add in_serving_irq() and apply to rcutiny and
 vsprintf
Message-ID: <20210818235916.l3zbdt5nli5j65xi@mail.google.com>
References: <20210814014234.51395-1-changbin.du@gmail.com>
 <YRqMRFPDL0U9Orec@boqun-archlinux>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YRqMRFPDL0U9Orec@boqun-archlinux>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:03:16AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 09:42:34AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > At some places we need to determine whether we're in nmi, hardirq or
> > softirq context. This adds a macro in_serving_irq() as a shortcut for
> > that.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, apply this new macro to existing code in rcutiny and vsprintf.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/preempt.h | 4 +++-
> >  include/linux/rcutiny.h | 3 +--
> >  lib/vsprintf.c          | 2 +-
> >  3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
> > index 9881eac0698f..9a1c924e2c6c 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/preempt.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
> > @@ -92,12 +92,14 @@
> >   * in_nmi()		- We're in NMI context
> >   * in_hardirq()		- We're in hard IRQ context
> >   * in_serving_softirq()	- We're in softirq context
> > + * in_serving_irq()	- We're in nmi, hardirq or softirq context
> >   * in_task()		- We're in task context
> >   */
> >  #define in_nmi()		(nmi_count())
> >  #define in_hardirq()		(hardirq_count())
> >  #define in_serving_softirq()	(softirq_count() & SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)
> > -#define in_task()		(!(in_nmi() | in_hardirq() | in_serving_softirq()))
> > +#define in_serving_irq()	(in_nmi() | in_hardirq() | in_serving_softirq())
> > +#define in_task()		(!in_serving_irq())
> >  
> 
> So in_serving_irq() is !in_task(), right? If so, why not...
> 
Adding in_serving_irq() is to reflect the real purpose so improve readability.
And can we preserve that !in_task() means in serving irq context in future? I don't know.

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du