On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 06:29:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:24:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:19:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > How about we simply assume 'idle' code, as defined by the rcu idle hooks
> > > are safe? Why do we want to bend over backwards to cover this?
> > 
> > The thing is, we already have the special rcu trace hooks for tracing
> > inside this rcu-idle section, so why go beyond this now?
> 
> I have to defer to Steven and Masami on this one, but I would guess that
> they want the ability to trace the idle loop for the same reasons they
> stated earlier.

want want want, I want a damn pony but somehow I'm not getting one. Why
are they getting this?