From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dm-block-manager: use spinlocks that don't
 disable interrupts
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:57:42 -0400
Message-ID: <20110912135742.GA23492@infradead.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1109120723560.15190@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>
Reply-To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1109120723560.15190@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Cc: Edward Thornber <thornber@redhat.com>
List-Id: dm-devel.ids

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 07:24:48AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> dm-block-manager: use spinlocks that don't disable interrupts
> 
> This will never be called in an interrupt context, so we don't have to use
> spinlocks that disable interrupts.

The code looks like a re-implementation of rw_semaphores to me.

Is there any good reason to do this? (hint: normally there isn't :))