On 03/31/2010 03:31 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:47 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> perhaps the second one isn't needed? Perhaps no architecture >> requires >>> that local interrupts be disabled across the above initialisations? >> >> spin_unlock_irq from arm is different from other archs? > > No, it's not, it will enable IRQs and thats illegal to do so early > during boot. We've been over that one again and again, the problem is > that people want to keep using that instead of irqsave/restore because > it's a nano-optimisation on x86... oh well... > Well, guess what... the particular user in this case *isn't used at all on x86* so it is a non-issue here. So I take it we have your particular vote to use irqsave/irqrestore in lib/rwsem-spinlock.c? -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
