Re: [PATCH] Code clean up for percpu_xxx() functions

[Avi Kivity]

On 10/19/2011 11:23 AM, Alex,Shi wrote:
> > Well do the obvious (where you can see that interrupts or preemption are
> > disabled in the function or in a calling function). Leave the rest as is
> > and provide separate patches for them?
>
> Thanks for comments! I initialized the patch as following accordingly,
> And cc to more maintainers for review. I checked all code except xen/kvm
> part, totally a idiot for them. 
>
>
>
> ==========
>
> Since percpu_xxx() serial functions are duplicate with this_cpu_xxx().
> Removing percpu_xxx() definition and replacing them by this_cpu_xxx() in
> code.
>
> And further more, as Christoph Lameter's requirement, I try to use
> __this_cpu_xx to replace this_cpu_xxx if it is in preempt safe scenario.
> The preempt safe scenarios include:
> 1, in irq/softirq/nmi handler
> 2, protected by preempt_disable
> 3, protected by spin_lock
> 4, if the code context imply that it is preempt safe, like the code is
> follows or be followed a preempt safe code.
>
> I left the xen/kvm part code unchanged, since no any idea of them.
>
>

All of the kvm usage is in preemption disabled contexts.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/