Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: cosmetic, delete wrong comment, use HARDIRQ_OFFSET

[Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>]

Dipankar Sarma wrote:

>On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 06:06:52PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>  
>
>>Afaics, this comment is misleading. rcu_check_quiescent_state()
>>is executed in softirq context, while rcu_check_callbacks() checks
>>in_softirq() before ++qsctr.
>>
>>Also, replace (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT) by HARDIRQ_OFFSET.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Looks good to me. IIRC, that comment has been around since very
>early prototypes, so it is probably leftover trash.
>
>  
>
I agree. I think I only moved it around.
But I don't like the HARDIRQ_OFFSET change. If I understand the code 
correctly it checks that there is no hardirq reentrancy, i.e. the count 
is 0 or 1. Shifted to the appropriate position for the actual test.
I'd either leave it as it is or use "1*HARDIRQ_OFFSET" - otherwise the 
information that the count should be less of equal one is lost.

--
    Manfred