Robert Love wrote:
> Right, I meant just the spin_lock_irq case, which would be fine except
> for the case where:
>
> spin_lock_irq
> spin_unlock
> restore_irq
>
> to solve this, we need a spin_unlock_irq_on macro that didn't touch the
> preemption count.
Has someone a real example of something like this?
I'd suspect someone is trying a (questionable) micro optimization or is
holding the lock for too long anyway. Instead of adding more macros,
maybe it's better to look closely whether something needs fixing.
bye, Roman
-
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/