[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0705100942590.32241@pademelon.sonytel.be>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:44:18 +0200 (CEST)
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
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@...ycom.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@...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