A clean up of the recursive protection code changed
val = this_cpu_read(current_context);
val--;
val &= this_cpu_read(current_context);
to
val = this_cpu_read(current_context);
val &= val & (val - 1);
Which has a duplicate use of '&' as the above is the same as
val = val & (val - 1);
Actually, it would be best to remove that line altogether and
just add it to where it is used.
And Christoph even mentioned that it can be further compacted to
just a single line:
__this_cpu_and(current_context, __this_cpu_read(current_context) - 1);
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/alpine.DEB.2.11.1503271423580.23114@gentwo.org
Suggested-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
static __always_inline void trace_recursive_unlock(void)
{
- unsigned int val = __this_cpu_read(current_context);
-
- val &= val & (val - 1);
- __this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
+ __this_cpu_and(current_context, __this_cpu_read(current_context) - 1);
}
#else