Re: [PATCH 07/24] locking: Switch to _irq_{disable,enable}() variants in cleanup guards

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 01:30:08PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The semantics of various irq disabling guards match what
> *_irq_{disable,enable}() provide, i.e. the interrupt disabling is
> properly nested, therefore it's OK to switch to use
> *_irq_{disable,enable}() primitives.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260121223933.1568682-17-lyude@xxxxxxxxxx
> ---
>  include/linux/spinlock.h | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> index 3d405cc4c121..a9d169dad6d4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> @@ -572,12 +572,12 @@ DECLARE_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(raw_spinlock_nested, __acquires(_T), __releases(*(raw
>  #define class_raw_spinlock_nested_constructor(_T) WITH_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(raw_spinlock_nested, _T)
>  
>  DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(raw_spinlock_irq, raw_spinlock_t,
> -		    raw_spin_lock_irq(_T->lock),
> -		    raw_spin_unlock_irq(_T->lock))
> +		    raw_spin_lock_irq_disable(_T->lock),
> +		    raw_spin_unlock_irq_enable(_T->lock))
>  DECLARE_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(raw_spinlock_irq, __acquires(_T), __releases(*(raw_spinlock_t **)_T))
>  #define class_raw_spinlock_irq_constructor(_T) WITH_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(raw_spinlock_irq, _T)
>  
> -DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1_COND(raw_spinlock_irq, _try, raw_spin_trylock_irq(_T->lock))
> +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1_COND(raw_spinlock_irq, _try, raw_spin_trylock_irq_disable(_T->lock))
>  DECLARE_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(raw_spinlock_irq_try, __acquires(_T), __releases(*(raw_spinlock_t **)_T))
>  #define class_raw_spinlock_irq_try_constructor(_T) WITH_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(raw_spinlock_irq_try, _T)
>  
> @@ -618,13 +618,13 @@ DECLARE_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(spinlock_try, __acquires(_T), __releases(*(spinlock_t
>  #define class_spinlock_try_constructor(_T) WITH_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(spinlock_try, _T)
>  
>  DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(spinlock_irq, spinlock_t,
> -		    spin_lock_irq(_T->lock),
> -		    spin_unlock_irq(_T->lock))
> +		    spin_lock_irq_disable(_T->lock),
> +		    spin_unlock_irq_enable(_T->lock))
>  DECLARE_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(spinlock_irq, __acquires(_T), __releases(*(spinlock_t **)_T))
>  #define class_spinlock_irq_constructor(_T) WITH_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(spinlock_irq, _T)
>  
>  DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1_COND(spinlock_irq, _try,
> -			 spin_trylock_irq(_T->lock))
> +			 spin_trylock_irq_disable(_T->lock))
>  DECLARE_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(spinlock_irq_try, __acquires(_T), __releases(*(spinlock_t **)_T))
>  #define class_spinlock_irq_try_constructor(_T) WITH_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(spinlock_irq_try, _T)

What about the _irqsave() guards?

Is the goal to replace _irqsave guard usage with _irq and then remove
the _irqsave guards?

If so, this should probably we mentioned somewhere.