[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
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <> 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_irqsave() generates fewer bugs, is more future-proof, and by
virtue of 'flags' permits architectures a bit more flexibility.


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 22:51    [W:0.083 / U:5.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site