lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

>> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> > > We certainly don't want to encourage people to blindly make those
>>> > > conversions ... and I've seen the results of encouraging kernel janitors
>>> > > to do things a certain way.

>> > There's another issue: the "irqsave/irqrestore" versions are much safer
>> > than the plain "irq" versions, in case the caller already has interrupts
>> > disabled.

> It's almost always a bug to do spin_lock_irq() when local interrupts are
> disabled.


Let me add to the chorus of voices: I continually see two cases where
real bugs crop up:

1) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() in incorrect context (where it is not
safe to do a blind enable/disable)

2) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() correctly, but the surrounding code
changes, thus invalidating prior assumptions.

I would even go so far as to support the drastic measure of deleting
spin_lock_irq().

spin_lock_irqsave() generates fewer bugs, is more future-proof, and by
virtue of 'flags' permits architectures a bit more flexibility.

Jeff



-
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: 2007-10-22 22:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site