lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] improve spinlock debugging
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.151 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site