On Friday, November 5, 2021 4:36:33 PM CET Dan Carpenter wrote: > Oh yeah, you're right. It never *just* does spinlocks (as stated in the > commit message btw), it does spin_lock_bh() which bumps the soft IRQ > count. Thank you very much for checking and confirming. > > To summarize, I think that using in_interrupt() in the old wrappers was the > > wiser choice. > > "Wiser" is not the right word. The wrappers were always stupid, but I > guess they did work in this case so the fixes tag is correct. Ah, sorry. I was not able to express my thought properly :( I agree with you that the wrappers were a not a good idea and Larry did well in removing them. Furthermore, I think that delegating the choice to use GFP_KERNEL vs. GFP_ATOMIC depending on the return from in_interrupt() is very bad design and it adds sensible overhead. I used "wiser" is a stricter sense. I meant that, if wrappers were needed (but they were not), in_interrupt() is "wiser" than "in_atomic()". Regards, Fabio M. De Francesco
