Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:10:09 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave() |
| |
Edward Falk wrote: > Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to > asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same > semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts > disabled while it is waiting for the lock. > > This fix is courtesy of Michael Davidson
So, what's the bug? You shouldn't rely on these semantics anyway because you should never expect to wait for a spinlock for so long (and it may be the case that irqs can't be enabled anyway).
BTW. you should be cc'ing Andi Kleen (x86+/-64 maintainer) on this type of stuff.
No comments on the merits of adding this feature. I suppose parity with i386 is a good thing, though.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |