Re: + softirq-cleanup-preempt-check.patch added to -mm tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +static inline void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h,
> +		int prev_count)

unnecessary linebreak.

> +{
> +	if (unlikely(prev_count != preempt_count())) {

should be something like:

	if (prev_count == preempt_count())
		return;

then the rest will look cleaner as well.

> +		printk(KERN_ERR "huh, entered softirq %td %s %pf with preempt_count %08x, exited with %08x?\n",

Could be pr_err().

> +			softirq_preempt_check(h, prev_count);

Please put 'debug' in the function name as i suggested - that way people 
will only read it if they are interested in debug checks.

softirq_debug_check() would be perfect. (which might even grow new 
checks in the future)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/