[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1224665128.15448.4.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:45:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
tee@....com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow rwlocks to re-enable interrupts
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 10:34 +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> c b/kernel/spinlock.c
> index 29ab207..f769d8a 100644
> --- a/kernel/spinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/spinlock.c
> @@ -121,7 +121,11 @@ unsigned long __lockfunc _read_lock_irqsave(rwlock_t *lock)
> local_irq_save(flags);
> preempt_disable();
> rwlock_acquire_read(&lock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> LOCK_CONTENDED(lock, _raw_read_trylock, _raw_read_lock);
> +#else
> + _raw_read_lock_flags(lock, &flags);
> +#endif
> return flags;
> }
That should be CONFIG_LOCK_STAT.
But aside from that, I really don't like this change, I'd rather you'd
create a LOCK_CONTENDED_FLAGS() that can deal with this.
--
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