On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 17:26 +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:34:55PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> > I'm aware of the topic, but missing the benefits of the irqoff version
> > unconditionally doesn't seem to be the best option.
>
> What are the benefits of the irqoff version? As far as I see it, the
> only use case for that function is when the caller has _explicitly_
> disabled interrupts.
Yeah, it's a straight up correctness issue as it sits. There is a
dinky bit of overhead added to the general case when using the correct
function though, at least on x86. I personally don't see why we should
care deeply enough to want to add more code to avoid it given there are
about a zillions places where we do the same for the same reason, but
that's a maintainer call.
-Mike
