>>>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:42:11 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@sgi.com> said: Keith> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:07:44 -0700, David Mosberger Keith> <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:19:37 +1000, Keith Owens >>>>>>> <kaos@sgi.com> said: >> Keith> spin_lock_irqsave() on a contended lock leaves interrupts Keith> disabled while waiting for the lock. If the interrupts were Keith> enabled before spin_lock_irqsave then this has the nasty side Keith> effect of preventing interrupt handling while waiting for the Keith> lock. Change the contention path to enable interrupts if it Keith> is safe to do so, allowing the cpu to process interrupts Keith> while waiting for the lock. >> Seems like a reasonable thing to me. I'm fine with the >> ia64-specific bits, so I guess the only question is whether the >> linux/spinlock.h bits will be accepted. Keith> Catch 22. The ia64 code cannot be changed without the change Keith> to linux/spinlock.h, that change cannot be justified without Keith> at least one architecture using it. David, could you send Keith> the change to Linus as an ia64 patch, other architectures can Keith> define _raw_spin_lock_flags if they want it. No, it's not a catch 22. Just send the patch upstream and tell them the ia64-portion has my approval. I just don't have time at the moment to push this patch on. --david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Fri Apr 9 12:08:18 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:25 EST