Re: [PATCH] improve spinlock debugging

Robert Love (rml@tech9.net)
04 Dec 2001 15:51:41 -0500


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/