* David Miller (davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:52:19 -0400 > > > The local_bh_disable() could be outside of the locking construct. This > > would make it easier to adapt it to various users (irq disable, bh > > disable, preempt disable) depending on the contexts from which they much > > be protected. > > > > And if it still does not work for some reason, using a #define is > > discouraged, but could work. > > That's what I was hoping to avoid, things like macros and having > the callers of this thing expand the two parts of the operation. > > What's the point in making this generic if it ends up being ugly > as hell? .. and what's the point in making it generic if it can be replaced by a proper RCU implementation ? :-) I am not convinced of the added value we get in making it a generic header this soon. I would wait for other users to express similar needs, otherwise this could soon become an orphaned piece of locking code. Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
