On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:58:31PM -0800, Kevin Paul Herbert wrote: > In edit 1.68, the non-interrupt locking versions of > raw_readq()/raw_writeq() were removed, in favor of locking ones. While > this makes sense in general, it breaks the compilation of the sb1250 > which uses the non-locking versions (____raw_readq() and > ____raw_writeq()) in interrupt handlers. Why was someone using these function at all? if you don't need locking simply do *reg_addr = val; > Personally, I think that it is very confusing to have so many similar > macros with similar names and increasing numbers of underscores, so I > don't really have a problem with this. I've modified > arch/mips/sibyte/sb1250/time.c and arch/mips/sibyte/sb1250/irq.c to use > the __ versions and have a few more instructions of overhead. __ versions wasn't probably intended to use in C code. One should use readq/writeq to get sane behaviour. These function was introduced to hide architecture specific details. If you need something special, you should introduce your own macros. > My question is whether this removal was intended or not, or whether > there are some other changes to the handlers in the sb1250-specific code > that got dropped somewhere. Yes it was. And I'm the one to blame for it ;) > If the consensus is that the ____ versions really should perish for the > sake of simplicity, I'll send my simple patches to the list to fix the > sb1250 build. Yes please. ladis
