Re: [patch] 2.6.6-rc2 Allow architectures to reenable interrupts on contended spinlocks

[Paul Mackerras]

Keith Owens writes:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:54:11 +1000, 
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Looks good, except as paulus noted that using 0 for flags in the
> >_raw_spin_lock() case is wrong, since 0 is a valid flags value
> >for some archs that could mean anything... 
> 
> 0 is valid for ia64, which is the only architecture that currently
> defines __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS.  If other architectures want
> to define __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS and they need a different
> flag value to indicate 'no flags available' then the 0 can be changed
> to an arch defined value.  Worry about that if it ever occurs.

I was just thinking yesterday that it would be good to reenable
interrupts during spin_lock_irq on ppc64.  I am hacking on the
spinlocks for ppc64 at the moment and this looks like something worth
adding.

Why not keep _raw_spin_lock as it is and only use _raw_spin_lock_flags
in the spin_lock_irq{,save} case?

Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/