Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 03 Sep 2003 19:31:45 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.6.0-test4-mm5 |
| |
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > BTW. David: Any reason why you wouldn't let me change all occurences > of spin_{lock,unlock}_irq into the ...{save,restore} versions ?
IMO... even though you do lose a tiny bit of performance, I definitely prefer the save/restore versions.
It allows the arch a lot more flexibility, so I even have a [weak] argument that {save,restore} variants increase portability. And it's safer, as I like to avoid code which winds up doing (as it passes through layers) spin_unlock_irq() followed by spin_unlock_irqrestore().
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |