On Thu, 10 May 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> This patch renames the raw hard_irq_{enable,disable} into
> __hard_irq_{enable,disable} and introduces a higher level
> hard_irq_disable() function that can be used by any code
> to enforce that IRQs are fully disabled, not only lazy
> disabled.
Why did you rename hard_irq_enable() too?
Isn't it more logical to have high-level hard_irq_disable() and
hard_irq_enable(), and a special low-level __hard_irq_disable()?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- Sony Network and Software Technology Center Europe (NSCE)
[email protected] ------- The Corporate Village, Da Vincilaan 7-D1
Voice +32-2-7008453 Fax +32-2-7008622 ---------------- B-1935 Zaventem, Belgium
-
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]
