Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 15:11:46 EST
On Monday 22 October 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Yes, it's always been ugly that we use unsigned long for this rather than
> abstracting it properly.
>
> However I'd prefer that we have some really good reason for introducing
> irq_flags_t now. Simply so that I don't needlessly spend the next two
> years wrestling with literally thousands of convert-to-irq_flags_t patches
> and having to type "please use irq_flags_t here" in hundreds of patch
> reviews. (snivel, wimper)
On a related note, should we encourage the use of spin_lock() and
spin_lock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsave() where possible?
On some architectures, accessing the interrupt flag is a heavyweight
operation, especially when running under a hypervisor, so a number
of drivers could benefit from being converted to not save the flags
at all instead of just changing the type of the flags variable.
Arnd <><
-
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/