Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:36:48 +1000 | From | Paul Mackerras <> | Subject | Re: [patch] 2.6.6-rc2 Allow architectures to reenable interrupts on contended spinlocks |
| |
Keith Owens writes:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:54:11 +1000, > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >Looks good, except as paulus noted that using 0 for flags in the > >_raw_spin_lock() case is wrong, since 0 is a valid flags value > >for some archs that could mean anything... > > 0 is valid for ia64, which is the only architecture that currently > defines __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS. If other architectures want > to define __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS and they need a different > flag value to indicate 'no flags available' then the 0 can be changed > to an arch defined value. Worry about that if it ever occurs.
I was just thinking yesterday that it would be good to reenable interrupts during spin_lock_irq on ppc64. I am hacking on the spinlocks for ppc64 at the moment and this looks like something worth adding.
Why not keep _raw_spin_lock as it is and only use _raw_spin_lock_flags in the spin_lock_irq{,save} case?
Paul. - 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/
| |