[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1371719574.3252.397.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:12:54 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/timer.c: using spin_lock_irqsave instead of
spin_lock + local_irq_save, especially when CONFIG_LOCKDEP not defined
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 16:37 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
>
> is not semantically the same as
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> spin_lock(&lock);
>
> It depend on the spin_lock_irqsave() implementation, if the parameters
> has no relation ship with each other, semantically the same.
Of course all implementations must respect the blocks are
totally the same.
Arguing about this is plain silly.
If you found a buggy implementation, please fix it.
--
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