lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 05 Dec 2001 02:13:28 +0100
FromRoman Zippel <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] improve spinlock debugging
Hi,

Robert Love wrote:

> Right, I meant just the spin_lock_irq case, which would be fine except
> for the case where:
>
> spin_lock_irq
> spin_unlock
> restore_irq
>
> to solve this, we need a spin_unlock_irq_on macro that didn't touch the
> preemption count.

Has someone a real example of something like this?
I'd suspect someone is trying a (questionable) micro optimization or is
holding the lock for too long anyway. Instead of adding more macros,
maybe it's better to look closely whether something needs fixing.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2010