On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Code that relies on
> > cli/sti for atomicity should be pretty rare and limited, there's 1 known
> > case so far where it leads to bugs.
>
> Are you implying that all code which does spin_unlock() inside
> local_irq_disable() needs to be converted to use _raw_spin_unlock()? If
> so then, umm, ugh. I hope that the debug check is working for
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
yes, it works for CONFIG_PREEMT=n as well.
> BTW, what is the situation with spin_unlock_irq[restore]()? Seems that
> these will schedule inside local_irq_disable() quite a lot?
i changed the order in my patch - and there's another valid reason for it:
to slightly reduce the amount of time spent with irqs disabled.
Ingo
-
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 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:15 EST