On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:30:22 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/11/2013 02:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:18:00 +0200 > > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> * Mario Kleiner | 2013-09-26 18:16:47 [+0200]: > >> > >>> Good! I will do that. Thanks for clarifying the irq and constraints > >>> on raw locks in the other thread. > >> > >> Are there any suggestions for "now"? preempt_disable_nort() like Luis > >> suggesed? > >> > > > > The preempt_disable_nort() is rather pointless, because the > > preempt_disable() was added specifically for -rt. When PREEMPT_RT is > > not enabled, preemption is disabled there already by the previous calls > > to spin_lock(). > > Either way. Then I remove the preempt_enable/disable call. Any > objections? > I have no issues with it, but it may cause issues with timings for the device. But I see Mario is looking into that :-) -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
