Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:59:49 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: linux interrupt handling problem |
| |
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Roman Zippel wrote: > > 1. I had such a patch already, but it was rejected by Jes for some reason. > 2. It adds an extra check to an often used macro for spinlocks for only a > few cases that could be avoided completly.
Hmm..
I don't think it is used in spinlocks ever. At least it SHOUDLN'T be used.
The spinlock code uses "local_irq_save()" and "local_irq_restore()", both of which should be fine in all the contexts you're talking about (they'll never end up re-enabling interrupts).
The "unlock_irq()" version is basically almost never used, so yes, while it woul dget slightly longer it shouldn't much matter.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |