[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
Jeff Garzik <> wrote:
> 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.

Could we add a debug option that warned if spin_lock_irq is
executed with IRQs turned off already?

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <>
Home Page:
PGP Key:
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: 2007-10-23 05:39    [W:0.052 / U:3.824 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site