On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:12:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19 2020 at 13:26, Ira Weiny wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:32:50AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: Sorry, let me clarify. After this patch we have.
typedef union irqentry_state { bool exit_rcu; bool lockdep; } irqentry_state_t;
Which reflects the mutual exclusion of the 2 variables.
Huch? From the patch I gave you:
#ifndef irqentry_state typedef struct irqentry_state { bool exit_rcu;
bool lockdep;} irqentry_state_t; #endif
How is that a union?
I was proposing to make it a union.
But then when the pkrs stuff is added the union changes back to a structure and looks like this.
So you want:
Move stuff to struct irqentry_state (my patch)
Change it to a union and pass it as pointer at the same time
No, I would have made it a union in your patch.
Pass by reference would remain largely the same.
- Change it back to struct to add PKRS
Yes. :-/
Is that clear?
What's clear is that the above is nonsense. We can just do
#ifndef irqentry_state typedef struct irqentry_state { union { bool exit_rcu; bool lockdep; }; } irqentry_state_t; #endif
right in the patch which I gave you. Because that actually makes sense.
Ok I'm very sorry. I was thinking that having a struct containing nothing but an anonymous union would be unacceptable as a stand alone item in your patch. In my experience other maintainers would have rejected such a change and would have asked; 'why not just make it a union'?
I'm very happy skipping the gymnastics on individual patches in favor of making the whole series work out in the end.
Thank you for your help again. :-)
Ira