[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1178781677.14928.221.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:21:17 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add hard_irq_disable()
> So you're saying that this mechanism forces the arch (that really
> wants hard_irq_disable) to _#define_ hard_irq_disable (as a macro),
> and if it implements it as an inline function, for example, then we're
> screwed?
No. The idea is to do like we did for a few other things already
(according to Linus request in fact), which is to write
static inline void hard_irq_disable(void)
{
.../...
}
#define hard_irq_disable hard_irq_disable
This is nicer than having an ARCH_HAS_xxx
> 1. Introduce some CONFIG_WANTS_HARD_IRQ_DISABLE that is #defined (or
> left undefined) by the arch/.../defconfig (depending upon whether or
> not that arch implements a hard_irq_disable() for itself or not)
>
> 2. Then pull-in that code into include/linux/interrupt.h somehow
> (through some known / fixed header file, or through asm/system.h, or
> anyhow -- it doesn't really matter)
>
> 3. And:
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_WANTS_HARD_IRQ_DISABLE
> #define hard_irq_disable() do { } while(0)
> #endif
Well, last time I tried that, Linus NACKed it in favor of what I
described above.
> We don't need to standardize on some particular arch-specific header
> filename in this case.
True, that's my main problem here. Though really only the archs who
actually implement something special here need to be careful.
Ben.
-
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