From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264044AbUD0MdV (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:33:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264039AbUD0MdQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:33:16 -0400 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:50705 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264034AbUD0MdO (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:33:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:33:11 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Keith Owens Cc: Paul Mackerras , Linux Kernel list Subject: Re: [patch] 2.6.6-rc2 Allow architectures to reenable interrupts on contended spinlocks Message-ID: <20040427133310.A16351@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Keith Owens , Paul Mackerras , Linux Kernel list References: <16526.17872.872703.799153@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <2300.1083067525@ocs3.ocs.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <2300.1083067525@ocs3.ocs.com.au>; from kaos@sgi.com on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:05:25PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:05:25PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:36:48 +1000, > Paul Mackerras wrote: > >I was just thinking yesterday that it would be good to reenable > >interrupts during spin_lock_irq on ppc64. I am hacking on the > >spinlocks for ppc64 at the moment and this looks like something worth > >adding. > > > >Why not keep _raw_spin_lock as it is and only use _raw_spin_lock_flags > >in the spin_lock_irq{,save} case? > > Using both _raw_spin_lock and _raw_spin_lock_flags doubles the amount > of code to maintain. So define _raw_spin_lock to _raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, 0) in ia64 code?