Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:24:54 -0700
Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> >> @@ -280,6 +280,10 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
> >>       unsigned fsindex, gsindex;
> >>       fpu_switch_t fpu_switch;
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
> >> +     WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
> >> +#endif
> >
> > Please introduce a less noisy (to the eyes) version of this, something like:
> >
> >         WARN_ON_DEBUG_ENTRY(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
> >
> > or so, similar to WARN_ON_FPU().
> 
> I can do that (or "DEBUG_ENTRY_WARN_ON"?  we seem to be inconsistent
> about ordering).
> 
> Or would if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY)) WARN_ON(...) be better?
> 

Does WARN_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY) && this_cpu_read(irq_count))
work?

-- Steve
--
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/