[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071022130223.f7d75c31.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:02:23 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: matthew@....cx, arnd@...db.de, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
adobriyan@...il.com, viro@....linux.org.uk,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > We certainly don't want to encourage people to blindly make those
> > conversions ... and I've seen the results of encouraging kernel janitors
> > to do things a certain way.
>
> There's another issue: the "irqsave/irqrestore" versions are much safer
> than the plain "irq" versions, in case the caller already has interrupts
> disabled.
>
> So anybody making the change not only would need to make the performance
> argument, he'd better not be a janitor that blindly does the change
> without thinking about all call-sites etc..
>
It's almost always a bug to do spin_lock_irq() when local interrupts are
disabled. However iirc when we've tried to add runtime debugging to catch
that, it triggered false-positives which made the idea unworkable. I forget
where.
However what we could do is to add a new
spin_lock_irq_tell_me_if_i_goofed() which would perform that runtime check.
-
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