spin_unlock_bh() and preempt_check_resched()

Hi,

I'm wondering about macros like _spin_unlock_bh(lock):
do { \
        _raw_spin_unlock(lock); \
        preempt_enable(); \
        local_bh_enable(); \
        __release(lock); \
} while (0)

Is there a reason for using preempt_enable() instead of a simple
preempt_enable_no_resched() ?

Since we know bottom halves are disabled, preempt_schedule() will always
return at once (preempt_count!=0), and hence preempt_check_resched() is
useless here...

Regards,
Samuel
-
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] spin_unlock_bh() and preempt_check_resched()
    • From: Samuel Thibault <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [updated patch 7/7] BSD Secure Levels: remove redundant ptrace check
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm2 - sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:2502
• Previous by thread: Windows XP + Office XP = $80.
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] spin_unlock_bh() and preempt_check_resched()
• 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]