From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756949Ab0EZRL6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 13:11:58 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:52864 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755396Ab0EZRL4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 13:11:56 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=WC2cwRI/KXdLNEmE8ivg2cmI8vFt6dWmaZdvaJ93QHU= c=1 sm=0 a=Fogt7QVrsnkA:10 a=yQWWgrYGNuUA:10 a=7U3hwN5JcxgA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=gMqfjgEr1zLu/65IO0LwxA==:17 a=ZW4iH3G3atxXlYsZSAYA:9 a=MaCzacFuu3luLZcbTHDRWFWKtjYA:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=gMqfjgEr1zLu/65IO0LwxA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.89.75 Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: Use raw_local_irq_save/restore instead local_irq_save/restore From: Steven Rostedt Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: monstr@monstr.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, michal.simek@petalogix.com, arnd@arndb.de, john.williams@petalogix.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peter.fritzsche@gmx.de, anton@samba.org, mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: <20100526100805.171b3c48.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1274863724-14906-1-git-send-email-monstr@monstr.eu> <1274863724-14906-2-git-send-email-monstr@monstr.eu> <1274884963.22648.245.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20100526100805.171b3c48.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Organization: Kihon Technologies Inc. Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 13:11:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1274893911.22648.246.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:08 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > If a developer looks at atomic_add_return() and asks himself "why did > this use raw_local_irq_save()", the only way of answering that question > is to go groveling through the git logs, which is a right PITA if > you're trying to get some coding work done. > > Guys, any time you add code which is non-obvious at the raw C level, it > *needs* a comment! Totally agree! I've gotten pretty good at adding comments to changes like this that I do. I need to get better at telling others to comment their work ;-) -- Steve