On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > We certainly don't want to encourage people to blindly make those > > conversions ... and I've seen the results of encouraging kernel janitors > > to do things a certain way. > > There's another issue: the "irqsave/irqrestore" versions are much safer > than the plain "irq" versions, in case the caller already has interrupts > disabled. > > So anybody making the change not only would need to make the performance > argument, he'd better not be a janitor that blindly does the change > without thinking about all call-sites etc.. > It's almost always a bug to do spin_lock_irq() when local interrupts are disabled. However iirc when we've tried to add runtime debugging to catch that, it triggered false-positives which made the idea unworkable. I forget where. However what we could do is to add a new spin_lock_irq_tell_me_if_i_goofed() which would perform that runtime check. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
