From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from colo.lackof.org (colo.lackof.org [198.49.126.79]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D286D486F for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:03:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.lackof.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1C029803E for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:03:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from colo.lackof.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (colo [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31925-03 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:03:57 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:03:57 -0700 From: Grant Grundler To: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Message-ID: <20040329160357.GA31448@colo.lackof.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [parisc-linux] init_idle and local_irq_save List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi all, I'm trying to get 2.6 SMP working on a UP box and was walking through the init sequence. I have two questions related to init_idle() in kernel/sched.c: o local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore are called without an obvious local_irq_disable() call in between. Is this really needed for some other reason or is the local_irq_disable() missing? o double_rq_lock() acquires the locks with lowest address first. double_rq_unlock() does not release those in the inverse order. Is that a problem? I'm just nervous since I didn't see the local_irq_disable() in init_idle() which would guarantee both unlock's happen atomically. thanks, grant