[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808161417400.3324@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] De-macro spin_trylock_irq, spin_trylock_irqsave,
write_trylock_irqsave
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 03:31:00PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't this break on sparc -- is it tested there?
>
> What's so special about sparc?
Sparc _used_ to save/restore the whole processor flags word with the irq
flags. That includes, iirc, things like the register window crap, so if
you did a save/restore flags in a function, it would get all that wrong
and things would blow up.
However, I don't think sparc has actually done that for a _loong_ time
now, due to it always being problematic.
> >> +static inline int spin_trylock_irqsave(spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long *flags)
However, I refuse to see this crap.
Like it or not, the 'flags' argument has always been pass-by-reference,
and not a pointer. It does that because it used to make a huge difference
for gcc code generation and for making it easy to do as a direct inline
asm. We're not going to change that.
Linus
--
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