[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902121836530.15469@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:37:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rt/threadirqs: don't need to save irqs in
do_hardirq()
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:24:59PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > 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?
>
>
> Actually... I cheated.
> Once the two patches were done, I saw the unused variable warning. So I remade the second patch
> to remove flags but..yes it should be on the first patch, I must confess...
That's fine, I'll pull both of them in.
Thanks Frederic!
-- Steve
--
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