Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 May 2007 09:44:18 +0200 (CEST) | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: Fixup hard_irq_disable semantics |
| |
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > This patch renames the raw hard_irq_{enable,disable} into > __hard_irq_{enable,disable} and introduces a higher level > hard_irq_disable() function that can be used by any code > to enforce that IRQs are fully disabled, not only lazy > disabled.
Why did you rename hard_irq_enable() too?
Isn't it more logical to have high-level hard_irq_disable() and hard_irq_enable(), and a special low-level __hard_irq_disable()?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- Sony Network and Software Technology Center Europe (NSCE) Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com ------- The Corporate Village, Da Vincilaan 7-D1 Voice +32-2-7008453 Fax +32-2-7008622 ---------------- B-1935 Zaventem, Belgium - 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/
| |