On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:14:25AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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?
We can only be glad that my daughters' old My Little Pony toys are long gone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Little_Pony). Not sure I would have been able to resist sending one along. ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
