[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations
On Monday 22 October 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Yes, it's always been ugly that we use unsigned long for this rather than
> abstracting it properly.
> However I'd prefer that we have some really good reason for introducing
> irq_flags_t now.  Simply so that I don't needlessly spend the next two
> years wrestling with literally thousands of convert-to-irq_flags_t patches
> and having to type "please use irq_flags_t here" in hundreds of patch
> reviews. (snivel, wimper)

On a related note, should we encourage the use of spin_lock() and
spin_lock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsave() where possible?

On some architectures, accessing the interrupt flag is a heavyweight
operation, especially when running under a hypervisor, so a number
of drivers could benefit from being converted to not save the flags
at all instead of just changing the type of the flags variable.

Arnd <><
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-22 21:15    [W:0.090 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site