On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > We certainly don't want to encourage people to blindly make those
> > conversions ... and I've seen the results of encouraging kernel janitors
> > to do things a certain way.
>
> There's another issue: the "irqsave/irqrestore" versions are much safer
> than the plain "irq" versions, in case the caller already has interrupts
> disabled.
>
> So anybody making the change not only would need to make the performance
> argument, he'd better not be a janitor that blindly does the change
> without thinking about all call-sites etc..
>
It's almost always a bug to do spin_lock_irq() when local interrupts are
disabled. However iirc when we've tried to add runtime debugging to catch
that, it triggered false-positives which made the idea unworkable. I forget
where.
However what we could do is to add a new
spin_lock_irq_tell_me_if_i_goofed() which would perform that runtime check.
-
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]
