Re: [patch] i386 spinlocks: disable interrupts only if we enabled them

* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:

> And it's increasing text size.  Which wouldn't be a big problem if the 
> spinning code was still in an out-of-line section, but it isn't any 
> more.
> 
> (I forget why we undid that optimisation.  What was wrong with it?)

we dont inline that code anymore. So i think the optimization is fine.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

	Ingo
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch] i386 spinlocks: disable interrupts only if we enabled them
    • From: Benjamin LaHaise <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch] i386 spinlocks: disable interrupts only if we enabled them
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] i386 spinlocks: disable interrupts only if we enabled them
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm: yield during swap prefetching
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] i386 spinlocks: disable interrupts only if we enabled them
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] i386 spinlocks: disable interrupts only if we enabled them
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]