Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.6.0-test4-mm5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




- : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux 802.1Q VLAN]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Git]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News and Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux PCI]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux