Re: [patch 2/21] reduced locking in buffer.c

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:53:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I have discussed it with David - he said it's OK in 2.5, but
> not in 2.4, and he has eyeballed the diff.
> 
> However there's another thing to think about:
> 
> 	local_irq_disable();
> 	atomic_inc();
> 
> If the architecture implements atomic_inc with spinlocks, this will
> schedule with interrupts off with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, I expect.
> 
> I can fix that with a preempt_disable() in there, but ick.

Is there a reason you can't just use brlocks?