[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44ED1891.6090708@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:10:09 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists