On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 14:51:22.000000000 +1000
> +++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 15:18:04.000000000 +1000
> @@ -241,6 +241,16 @@ static inline void __deprecated save_and
> #define save_and_cli(x) save_and_cli(&x)
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> +/* Some architectures might implement lazy enabling/disabling of
> + * interrupts. In some cases, such as stop_machine, we might want
> + * to ensure that after a local_irq_disable(), interrupts have
> + * really been disabled in hardware. Such architectures need to
> + * implement the following hook.
> + */
> +#ifndef hard_irq_disable
> +#define hard_irq_disable() do { } while(0)
> +#endif
We absolutely require that the architecture's hard_irq_disable() be defined
when we do this. If it happens that the definition of hard_irq_disable()
is implemented three levels deep in nested includes then we risk getting
into a situation where different .c files see different implementations of
hard_irq_disable(), which could lead to confusing results, to say the least.
Your implementation comes via the inclusion of system.h which then includes
hw_irq.h. That's perhaps a little fragile and it would be better to
a) include in the comment the name of the arch file which must implement
hard_irq_disable() and
b) include that file directly from this one.
Oh, and your comment layout style is wrong ;)
-
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/
[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]
