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 S1753100AbbHVNzJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:55:09 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:34130 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751208AbbHVNzH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:55:07 -0400
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:55:02 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then
 NMI-safe
Message-ID: <20150822135502.GA9911@gmail.com>
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>
 <CALCETrXc9iagtEZQRDgu_-xA3e2ak5NVSeQ6WirsdpNteibTkg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXc9iagtEZQRDgu_-xA3e2ak5NVSeQ6WirsdpNteibTkg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:

> 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?

Yeah, that one is more compact than the #ifdef variant.

Thanks,

	Ingo