Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.6.0-test4-mm5

[Jeff Garzik]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> BTW. David: Any reason why you wouldn't let me change all occurences
> of spin_{lock,unlock}_irq into the ...{save,restore} versions ?


IMO... even though you do lose a tiny bit of performance, I definitely
prefer the save/restore versions.

It allows the arch a lot more flexibility, so I even have a [weak]
argument that {save,restore} variants increase portability.  And it's
safer, as I like to avoid code which winds up doing (as it passes
through layers) spin_unlock_irq() followed by spin_unlock_irqrestore().

	Jeff




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html