[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:0.062 / U:75.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site