[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181016233704.7foq5jxvi5mn57jd@localhost>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:37:04 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
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 Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:03:59PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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?
I was thinking the exact same thing...
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists