Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] softirq: Make softirqs soft-interruptible (+ per vector disablement)

[Richard Cochran]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:03:59PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I have to ask a dumb question, though.  Might it not be better to add a
> new set of functions like:
> 
> 	local_softirq_disable(mask);
> 	spin_lock_softirq(lock, mask);
> 
> Then just define the existing functions to call the new ones with
> SOFTIRQ_ALL_MASK?  It would achieve something like the same result with
> far less churn and conflict potential; then individual call sites could be
> changed at leisure?

I was thinking the exact same thing...

Thanks,
Richard