Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:33:11 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [patch] 2.6.6-rc2 Allow architectures to reenable interrupts on contended spinlocks |
| |
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:05:25PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:36:48 +1000, > Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote: > >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? > > Using both _raw_spin_lock and _raw_spin_lock_flags doubles the amount > of code to maintain.
So define _raw_spin_lock to _raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, 0) in ia64 code?
- 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/
| |