From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753389AbbHEScb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:32:31 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]:34498 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752784AbbHESc3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:32:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150805142736.7dba3c8f@gandalf.local.home>
References: <cover.1437690860.git.luto@kernel.org> <040374ca9800988a0ed35ea9ddeb4a762c1371fa.1437690860.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <20150805085957.GA23893@gmail.com> <CALCETrV_ei6jJyzf8HFEZqUwk4k+SR+Ze=iwuXDmMYDynWDrjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150805142736.7dba3c8f@gandalf.local.home>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:32:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrXc9iagtEZQRDgu_-xA3e2ak5NVSeQ6WirsdpNteibTkg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:24:54 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> 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?

I'd be okay with it.  Ingo?

(Except that that line of code is from v1, and v2 looks slightly
different here, but that's beside the point.)

--Andy

>
> -- Steve



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC