Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] "big IRQ lock" removal, 2.5.27-A9 | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 21 Jul 2002 17:55:26 -0700 |
| |
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:40, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 02:31:16AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > +drivers that want to disable local interrupts (interrupts on the > > +current CPU), can use the following four macros: > > + > > + __cli(), __sti(), __save_flags(flags), __restore_flags(flags) > > Last mail before zzz (hopefully) - what about > local_irq_{enable,disable,save,restore} ? > > With the exception of local_irq_save() which is actually > local_irq_save_disable(), I find these to be more "descriptive" of > their function.
Yes and double yes.
And for two reasons: First, the __ prefix is unnecessary now. Second, not all the world is an x86 (it just looks that way).
local_irq_foo is definitely preferred.
I'd make the patch and go through the effort to rename and replace if Linus assured me it was in.
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/
| |