![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:36:48 +1000,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
>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?
Using both _raw_spin_lock and _raw_spin_lock_flags doubles the amount
of code to maintain.
Architectures like ia64 that use a common out of line contention path
need a common interface for all spinlocks, for the cases with and
without irq{,save}.
You can test __builtin_constant_p(flags) and fold out the case of the
flags being a known 'no flags available' value to get separate
contended paths if that is really what you want. But for architectures
that want a common path for all contended locks, you have to start with
common code.
-
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 | |||||||||||||