From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754377Ab2HNI0p (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:26:45 -0400 Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.6]:38347 "EHLO e28smtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754240Ab2HNI0n (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:26:43 -0400 Message-ID: <502A0BB1.4030608@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:56:25 +0530 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] preempt/hardirq.h: Fix comment about PREEMPT_ACTIVE bit location References: <20120720192459.6149.14821.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <1343706583.27983.28.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <1343706583.27983.28.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 12081408-9574-0000-0000-000003F818A2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/31/2012 09:19 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 00:54 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag is bit 27, not 28. Fix the comment. >> >> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat >> --- >> >> include/linux/hardirq.h | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h >> index bb7f309..305f23c 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/hardirq.h >> +++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h >> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ >> * >> * - bits 16-25 are the hardirq count (max # of nested hardirqs: 1024) >> * - bit 26 is the NMI_MASK >> - * - bit 28 is the PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag >> + * - bit 27 is the PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag > > Sorry but in arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h we have: > > #define PREEMPT_ACTIVE 0x10000000 > > Which happens to be the 28th bit, not 27th. Although, if an arch did not > define PREEMPT_ACTIVE it would be 27th. > > Perhaps the correct thing to do is to say: > > By default the following bits are defined as: > [...] > Different architectures may modify these. > > And then add your change. > Thanks a lot for your suggestions Steve! And sorry for the delay.. I'll post the updated patch (which applies on latest Linus master) as a reply to this thread. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat