Re: [patch 21/61] lock validator: lockdep: add local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() API.

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:28:52 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:24:52 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > introduce local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() API. It is currently
> > > aliased to local_irq_enable(), hence has no functional effects.
> > > 
> > > This API will be used by lockdep, but even without lockdep
> > > this will better document places in the kernel where a hardirq
> > > context enables hardirqs.
> > 
> > If we expect people to use this then we'd best whack a comment over 
> > it.
> 
> ok, i've improved the comment in trace_irqflags.h.
> 
> > Also, trace_irqflags.h doesn't seem an appropriate place for it to 
> > live.
> 
> seems like the most practical place for it. Previously we had no central 
> include file for irq-flags APIs (they used to be included from 
> asm/system.h and other random per-arch places) - trace_irqflags.h has 
> become the central file now. Should i rename it to irqflags.h perhaps, 
> to not tie it to tracing? We have some deprecated irq-flags ops in 
> interrupt.h, maybe this all belongs there. (although i think it's 
> cleaner to have linux/include/irqflags.h and include it from 
> interrupt.h)
> 

Yes, irqflags.h is nice.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/