On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > So I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to make it out-of-line when
> > TRACE_IRQFLAGS is off. This may make a difference because the
> > networking stack is a frequent user of local_bh_disable and
> > local_bh_enable.
>
> do you mean to make it inline again?
Yes I meant in-line :)
> (btw., generally i think local_bh_disable() is a poor API because it is
> opaque about the data structure dependency that it governs. Explicit
> exclusion rules generally work better.)
I see where you're coming from especially with your preemptible
softirq work. However I'm mostly thinking about the existing
callers of local_bh_disable in the networking stack.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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]
