lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.092 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site