Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] improve spinlock debugging | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 04 Dec 2001 15:51:41 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 15:30, george anzinger wrote:
> spin_lockirq > > spin_unlock > > restore_irq
Given this order, couldn't we _always_ not touch the preempt count since irq's are off?
Further, since I doubt we ever see:
spin_lock_irq restore_irq spin_unlock
and the common use is:
spin_lock_irq spin_unlock_irq
Isn't it safe to have spin_lock_irq *never* touch the preempt count?
Robert Love
- 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/
|  |