David Miller wrote:
quoted text
> From: Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com>
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:50:11 +0200
> 
> > No, therefore, I'd prefer local_irq_save() :-)
> 
> I'm pretty sure there is a specific reason driver's use
> disable_irq() rather than disabling local cpu IRQs.

Looks like most if not all of the ARM drivers use local_irq_save()...I
couldn't figure out what etherh does from a quick scan.

quoted text
> I just can't remember it at the moment.
> 
> And there absolutely must be a reason, because disable_irq()
> is a lot more expensive.

Sounds like another reason _not_ to use it ;-)

Well, if you're really sure about this, I guess you might as well go
ahead and apply it. But it feels wrong to Ack the patch when I don't
know the reason for using disable_irq() and can think of several
reasons _not_ to use it...

Haavard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html