On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> 
> * David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > > > I speculate that either the design has changed (without fanfare), 
> > > > or else that stuff is in RT kernels and has not yet gone upstream.
> > > 
> > > Well whatever.  We shouldn't have to resort to caller-side party 
> > > tricks like this to get acceptable performance.
> > 
> > I'd be happy if, as originally presented, it were possible to just 
> > pass a raw_spinlock_t to spin_lock_irqsave() and friends.
> 
> that's a spinlock type abstraction of PREEMPT_RT, not of mainline.

Any reason that stuff shouldn't move into mainline?


quoted text
> 	 Why do you want to use raw_spinlock_t?

Already answered elsewhere in this thread ... I'll highlight the
point that such bitops shouldn't be preemption points.
-
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/