Re: [PATCH] Remove unnecessary irq disabling

[Mark Lord]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > What does that break, or was it already broken and this fixes it?
> > I think neither. This function is only called at early bootup,
> > (start_secondary() ), and most of its callees have interrupts off anyway.
> > But maybe we do lose something. Andi, do you have a word on this?
>
> We need to enable them somewhere, but cpu_idle will do it in the end.
> So it should be safe to drop it. I guess keeping them disabled the whole
> time will be a little safer against potential races.
>
> I added the patch, but might want some cooking in -mm first because this
> is always fragile code.

Okay, that would have it now match how i386 does it.

-ml
-
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/