Re: [PATCH 1/2] rt/threadirqs: don't need to save irqs indo_hardirq()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:24:59PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 07:27:08PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
> > > do_hardirq() has only one caller do_irqd() in a path where irq are already
> > > disabled. So we don't need to save irqs while holding desc->lock
> > > 
> > > Replace spin_lock_irqsave by spin_lock.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/irq/manage.c |    4 ++--
> > >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > > index ed7c5e3..6e9baf8 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > > @@ -905,7 +905,7 @@ static void do_hardirq(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > >  {
> > >  	unsigned long flags;
> > 
> > Can flags be removed too?
> 
> 
> Actually... I cheated.
> Once the two patches were done, I saw the unused variable warning. So I remade the second patch
> to remove flags but..yes it should be on the first patch, I must confess...

That's fine, I'll pull both of them in.

Thanks Frederic!

-- Steve

--
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/