Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:29:12 +0100 Ralf Baechle <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 01:30:42PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > 			irq_flags_t
> > 	
> > New type for use with spin_lock_irqsave() and friends.
> Talking about it, why did we ever require this to be a long anyway?  I could
> get away with a single bit for MIPS; the rest of this variable is pure
> bloat.  An abstract datatype could help finally fix this.

Yes, it's always been ugly that we use unsigned long for this rather than
abstracting it properly.

However I'd prefer that we have some really good reason for introducing
irq_flags_t now.  Simply so that I don't needlessly spend the next two
years wrestling with literally thousands of convert-to-irq_flags_t patches
and having to type "please use irq_flags_t here" in hundreds of patch
reviews. (snivel, wimper)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux