Messages in this thread | | | From | Marco Elver <> | Date | Thu, 11 Nov 2021 10:39:49 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] kscan: Use preemption model accessors |
| |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 10:11, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote: > > Subject s/kscan/kcsan/ > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 08:24PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > Per PREEMPT_DYNAMIC, checking CONFIG_PREEMPT doesn't tell you the actual > > preemption model of the live kernel. Use the newly-introduced accessors > > instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com> > > Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> > > Though it currently doesn't compile as a module due to missing > EXPORT_SYMBOL of is_preempt*(). > > > --- > > kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c b/kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c > > index dc55fd5a36fc..14d811eb9a21 100644 > > --- a/kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c > > +++ b/kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c > > @@ -1005,13 +1005,13 @@ static const void *nthreads_gen_params(const void *prev, char *desc) > > else > > nthreads *= 2; > > > > - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KCSAN_INTERRUPT_WATCHER)) { > > + if (!is_preempt_full() || !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KCSAN_INTERRUPT_WATCHER)) {
In case you introduce the 5th helper I suggested (is_preempt_full_or_rt() or whatever you'll call it), this one can be switched, because this check really does want to know if "at least full preemption" and not "precisely full preemption".
Thanks, -- Marco
| |