On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 15:30, george anzinger wrote:
> spin_lockirq
>
> spin_unlock
>
> restore_irq
Given this order, couldn't we _always_ not touch the preempt count since
irq's are off?
Further, since I doubt we ever see:
spin_lock_irq
restore_irq
spin_unlock
and the common use is:
spin_lock_irq
spin_unlock_irq
Isn't it safe to have spin_lock_irq *never* touch the preempt count?
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 21:00:25 EST