Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

quoted text
>> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> > > We certainly don't want to encourage people to blindly make those
>>> > > conversions ... and I've seen the results of encouraging kernel janitors
>>> > > to do things a certain way.

quoted text
>> > There's another issue: the "irqsave/irqrestore" versions are much safer 
>> > than the plain "irq" versions, in case the caller already has interrupts 
>> > disabled. 

quoted text
> It's almost always a bug to do spin_lock_irq() when local interrupts are
> disabled.


Let me add to the chorus of voices:  I continually see two cases where 
real bugs crop up:

1) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() in incorrect context (where it is not 
safe to do a blind enable/disable)

2) hacker uses spin_lock_irq() correctly, but the surrounding code 
changes, thus invalidating prior assumptions.

I would even go so far as to support the drastic measure of deleting 
spin_lock_irq().

spin_lock_irqsave() generates fewer bugs, is more future-proof, and by 
virtue of 'flags' permits architectures a bit more flexibility.

	Jeff



-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/