![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Keith Owens writes:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:54:11 +1000,
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >Looks good, except as paulus noted that using 0 for flags in the
> >_raw_spin_lock() case is wrong, since 0 is a valid flags value
> >for some archs that could mean anything...
>
> 0 is valid for ia64, which is the only architecture that currently
> defines __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS. If other architectures want
> to define __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS and they need a different
> flag value to indicate 'no flags available' then the 0 can be changed
> to an arch defined value. Worry about that if it ever occurs.
I was just thinking yesterday that it would be good to reenable
interrupts during spin_lock_irq on ppc64. I am hacking on the
spinlocks for ppc64 at the moment and this looks like something worth
adding.
Why not keep _raw_spin_lock as it is and only use _raw_spin_lock_flags
in the spin_lock_irq{,save} case?
Paul.
-
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 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||