[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090212234349.GE5348@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:43:49 -0200
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
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 06:37:16PM -0500, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
>
> 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!
Ditto, that was just a follow up thingy, nothing against the change :-)
- Arnaldo
--
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