Re: Inline local_bh_disable when TRACE_IRQFLAGS

[Herbert Xu]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > So I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to make it out-of-line when 
> > TRACE_IRQFLAGS is off.  This may make a difference because the 
> > networking stack is a frequent user of local_bh_disable and 
> > local_bh_enable.
> 
> do you mean to make it inline again?

Yes I meant in-line :)

> (btw., generally i think local_bh_disable() is a poor API because it is 
> opaque about the data structure dependency that it governs. Explicit 
> exclusion rules generally work better.)

I see where you're coming from especially with your preemptible
softirq work.  However I'm mostly thinking about the existing
callers of local_bh_disable in the networking stack.

Thanks,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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/