On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 14:25 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks for the update, that's equivalent to the get_cpu_var
> plus put_cpu_var patch I had generally been running with successfully.
>
> (I was not at all confident that it was a sufficient fix, and have
> to say "generally" above b
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> We use __get_cpu_var() which triggers a false positive warning
> in smp_processor_id() thinking interrupts are enabled (at this
> point, they are soft-enabled but hard-disabled).
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> ---
>
> I was initial
We use __get_cpu_var() which triggers a false positive warning
in smp_processor_id() thinking interrupts are enabled (at this
point, they are soft-enabled but hard-disabled).
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
---
I was initially planning to fix that with a more in-depth rework
of how we do l
