Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, David S. Miller wrote:
>
>
>>I really think it is unwise to even imply that this kind of cli/sti
>>fixup can be done in some mindless manner, it really can't :-)
>
>
> i think the networking code is a special case - nothing else relies on the
> interaction of timers and IRQ contexts in such a deep way. (which it does
> for performance reasons.) I'd say 99% of all cli()/sti() users are in the
> 'introduce a per-driver or per-subsystem lock' league Linus mentioned.
Carefull.... The ATA host controller patches showed that mindless fixing
would just hide the fact that, well let me guess, 50% of cli() sti()
are remnants from the days we didn't even have spin locks or
are simple used becouse somone feeled like he needs "kind of safety"
and wanted to make some thing "bullet proof".. And it's easier to see
this kind of aplication on cli() then on "carefully" added spinlocking.
Becouse in the case of spinlocks there is always a chance that they
interact with some code you don't see when looking at a particular place
of usage of course...
-
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 - 14:00:19 EST