Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:38:08 -0500 | From | Joe Korty <> | Subject | Re: Define __raw_read_lock etc for uniprocessor builds |
| |
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:32:02PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:29 -0500, Joe Korty wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:17:12PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:09:54PM -0500, Joe Korty wrote: > > > > > > > > Make NOPed versions of __raw_read_lock and family available > > > > under uniprocessor kernels. > > > > > > > > Discovered when compiling a uniprocessor kernel with the > > > > fusyn patch applied. > > > > > > > > The standard kernel does not use __raw_read_lock etc > > > > outside of spinlock.c, which may account for this bug > > > > being undiscovered until now. > > > > > > No one should call these directly. Please fix your odd patch instead. > > > > Actually the patch calls the _raw version which is #defined to the __raw > > version. So it is doing the correct thing. > > no it's not, it has no business calling the _raw version either.
Nope.
1) The _raw_spin_lock family is used everywhere in the kernel. Why the arbitrary special rule for _raw_read_lock?????? It makes no sense.
2) The _raw versions are intended to be used in places where it is known that preemption is already disabled, so that the overhead of re-disabling/enabling it can be avoided.
Joe -- "All the revision in the world will not save a bad first draft, for the architecture of the thing comes, or fails to come, in the first conception, and revision only affects the detail and ornament. -- T.E. Lawrence - 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/
| |