Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()

[Nick Piggin]

Edward Falk wrote:
> Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to 
> asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same 
> semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts 
> disabled while it is waiting for the lock.
>
> This fix is courtesy of Michael Davidson

So, what's the bug? You shouldn't rely on these semantics anyway
because you should never expect to wait for a spinlock for so long
(and it may be the case that irqs can't be enabled anyway).

BTW. you should be cc'ing Andi Kleen (x86+/-64 maintainer) on
this type of stuff.

No comments on the merits of adding this feature. I suppose parity
with i386 is a good thing, though.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/