From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755863Ab2HNKTI (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:19:08 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:57532 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755844Ab2HNKS7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:18:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:18:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" cc: Steven Rostedt , mingo@kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] preempt/hardirq.h: Clarify PREEMPT_ACTIVE bit location In-Reply-To: <502A0C19.6010007@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20120720192459.6149.14821.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <1343706583.27983.28.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <502A0C19.6010007@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > By default, the PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag is bit 27, but different > architectures can override that. Update the comment to reflect > this fact. Is there any sensible reason why architectures need to override that? I can't find one. If there is none, then we should just remove all the overrides from the arch code instead. If there is a reason, then it should be documented. Thanks, tglx