Re: [PATCH] add typecheck on irqsave and friends for correct flags

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 1 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Then we would have been forced to do the
> >
> > 	irqflags_t spin_lock_irqsave(spinlock_t *lock);
> >
> > trick. Which would probably be the better long term solution, but the
> > biggest PITA for you in the short term.
>
> We should have done that from day one.  If there's an architecture out
> there which cannot fit its interrupt state into its unsigned long (hard to
> believe) then it'll need to pull stunts with cookies and lookups or
> something.  And on 64-bit architectures we're using 4 more bytes of local
> storage than is needed.
>
> But I don't think we've had enough problems with this particular issue to
> justify a kernel-wide edit like that.  And this patch should settle the
> issue.

I'm just thinking of all the wonderful tricks at hand if we had a special
irqflags_t type. But I'm sure you don't want any more special tricks from
us with respect to spinlocks ;-)

-- 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/