[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090212232459.GD5348@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:24:59 -0200
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rt/threadirqs: don't need to save irqs in
do_hardirq()
Em Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 07:27:08PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
> do_hardirq() has only one caller do_irqd() in a path where irq are already
> disabled. So we don't need to save irqs while holding desc->lock
>
> Replace spin_lock_irqsave by spin_lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/irq/manage.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> index ed7c5e3..6e9baf8 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> @@ -905,7 +905,7 @@ static void do_hardirq(struct irq_desc *desc)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
Can flags be removed too?
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
> + spin_lock(&desc->lock);
>
> if (!(desc->status & IRQ_INPROGRESS))
> goto out;
> @@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ static void do_hardirq(struct irq_desc *desc)
> else
> thread_do_irq(desc);
> out:
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
> + spin_unlock(&desc->lock);
>
> if (waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_handler))
> wake_up(&desc->wait_for_handler);
--
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