From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754012Ab0ISNJg (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:09:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5185 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753533Ab0ISNJe (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:09:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4C960B78.4010804@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:09:12 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100907 Fedora/3.1.3-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner CC: linux-kernel , KVM list , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar Subject: raw_spinlock_t rules Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Some time ago, the i8259 emulation code in kvm was changed to use raw_spinlock_t, as it was called in a preempt_disable() and local_irq_disable() context, which doesn't work with preemptible spinlocks used with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT. In Linux 2.6.37, the spinlock will no longer be taken in these contexts, so I'd like to change it to a normal spinlock_t. However, it is still taken in a spin_lock_irq() context. Is it okay to do this change? I figured since spin_lock_irq() is part of the spinlock infrastructure it might to the right thing. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function