On 2018-05-30 12:16:23 [+0100], John Garry wrote: > On 30/05/2018 11:16, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2018-05-30 10:34:12 [+0100], John Garry wrote: > > > Sorry, but personally I don't see much value in this change. I think it's > > > better for safety to be consistent in how we lock & unlock the spinlock, > > > i.e. use irqsave variant (or similar). > > > > The lock should do irqsave() and unlock irqrestore(). This > > local_irqsave() + unlock() is not correct. > > > > Aren't they the same, i.e. local_irq_save()+spin_lock() = > spin_lock_irqsave()? Both give state of lock held, interrupts and preemption > disabled. Yes, there are the same on vanilla and not on RT. However my point is that the code does this instead: local_irq_save(); spin_unlock(); and this is wrong. There is no spin_unlock_irqsave(). > > John > Sebastian
