[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181016160359.5523ae90@lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:03:59 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] softirq: Make softirqs soft-interruptible (+
per vector disablement)
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:11:47 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
> 945 files changed, 13857 insertions(+), 9767 deletions(-)
Impressive :)
I have to ask a dumb question, though. Might it not be better to add a
new set of functions like:
local_softirq_disable(mask);
spin_lock_softirq(lock, mask);
Then just define the existing functions to call the new ones with
SOFTIRQ_ALL_MASK? It would achieve something like the same result with
far less churn and conflict potential; then individual call sites could be
changed at leisure? For extra credit, somebody could do a checkpatch rule
to keep new calls to the _bh functions from being added.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists