On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> I can find no requirement that sti() in interrupts actually does anything.
> It seems quite permissible for it to be a non inside of an IRQ handler or
> to only lower the level to the current irq level
1. I had such a patch already, but it was rejected by Jes for some reason.
2. It adds an extra check to an often used macro for spinlocks for only a
few cases that could be avoided completly.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/