Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 05 Dec 2001 02:13:28 +0100 | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |