Re: [PATCH 4/4] genirq: Get rid of unnecessary IRQTF_DIED flag

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Of course I can't ack this, but afaics the whole series looks fine.
> 
> Only one minor nit,
> 
> On 03/09, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/irq/handle.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/handle.c
> > @@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ static void irq_wake_thread(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action)
> >  	 * device interrupt, so no irq storm is lurking. If the
> >  	 * RUNTHREAD bit is already set, nothing to do.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (test_bit(IRQTF_DIED, &action->thread_flags) ||
> > -	    test_and_set_bit(IRQTF_RUNTHREAD, &action->thread_flags))
> > +	if (test_and_set_bit(IRQTF_RUNTHREAD, &action->thread_flags) ||
> > +	    (action->thread->flags & PF_EXITING))
> >  		return;
> 
> perhaps it makes sense to check PF_EXITING first, we do not want
> to set IRQTF_RUNTHREAD in this case. I think this doesn't really
> matter (and the check is obviously racy anyway), just looks a bit
> confusing.

It does not matter, the thread cleans it up in the exit path. So it's
mostly cosmetic, but you are right, it reads better :)
--
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/