Re: [PATCH] updated low-latency zap_page_range

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, george anzinger wrote:
> >
> > That may be a bug in preempt_count(), of course.
> >
> Didn't we just put bh_count and irq_count in the same
> word???

Yes. But that doesn't mean that the "preempt_count()" macro necessarily
needs to reflect that.

In particular, we have separate macros for getting the irq bits from that
shared word ("irq_count()" etc). Right now they happen to use the
"preempt_count()" macro, but that's not really fundamental.

No big deal either way, I suspect.

		Linus