Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations | Date | Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:10:34 +0200 |
| |
On Monday 22 October 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > Yes, it's always been ugly that we use unsigned long for this rather than > abstracting it properly. > > However I'd prefer that we have some really good reason for introducing > irq_flags_t now. Simply so that I don't needlessly spend the next two > years wrestling with literally thousands of convert-to-irq_flags_t patches > and having to type "please use irq_flags_t here" in hundreds of patch > reviews. (snivel, wimper)
On a related note, should we encourage the use of spin_lock() and spin_lock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsave() where possible?
On some architectures, accessing the interrupt flag is a heavyweight operation, especially when running under a hypervisor, so a number of drivers could benefit from being converted to not save the flags at all instead of just changing the type of the flags variable.
Arnd <>< - 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/
| |