lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.3 remove global semaphore_lock spin lock.
On Thu, Jan 31 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:55:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + wq_write_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags);
> > > - spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
> >
> > I rather dislike spin_lock_irq(), because it's fragile (makes
>
> It's less flexible for architectures, too.
>
> spin_lock_irqsave is considered 100% portable AFAIK, and I make it my
> own policy to s/_irq/_irqsave/ when the opportunity strikes in my PCI
> drivers.

spin_lock_irq is cheaper, though, and sometimes you _know_ it's safe to
use. For instance, if the function in question can block (ie never
called with interrupts disabled) then using spin_lock_irq is always
safe.

I've heard this portability argument before, anyone care to outline
_what_ the problem allegedly is?? Major part of the kernel uses
spin_lock_irq and I suspect we would be seeing lots of request list
corruption did it not work.

--
Jens Axboe

-
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 13:23    [W:0.144 / U:0.800 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site