Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:52:37 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 21/61] lock validator: lockdep: add local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() API. |
| |
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:28:52 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:24:52 +0200 > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > introduce local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() API. It is currently > > > aliased to local_irq_enable(), hence has no functional effects. > > > > > > This API will be used by lockdep, but even without lockdep > > > this will better document places in the kernel where a hardirq > > > context enables hardirqs. > > > > If we expect people to use this then we'd best whack a comment over > > it. > > ok, i've improved the comment in trace_irqflags.h. > > > Also, trace_irqflags.h doesn't seem an appropriate place for it to > > live. > > seems like the most practical place for it. Previously we had no central > include file for irq-flags APIs (they used to be included from > asm/system.h and other random per-arch places) - trace_irqflags.h has > become the central file now. Should i rename it to irqflags.h perhaps, > to not tie it to tracing? We have some deprecated irq-flags ops in > interrupt.h, maybe this all belongs there. (although i think it's > cleaner to have linux/include/irqflags.h and include it from > interrupt.h) >
Yes, irqflags.h is nice. - 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/
| |