* Re: [PATCH 0/7] ppc: remove cli()/sti() from arch/ppc/* [not found] <20050104214048.21749.85722.89116@localhost.localdomain> @ 2005-01-05 2:19 ` Brian Gerst 2005-01-05 2:44 ` Jim Nelson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Brian Gerst @ 2005-01-05 2:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Nelson; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, paulus, linux-kernel James Nelson wrote: > This series of patches is to remove the last cli()/sti() function calls in arch/ppc. > > These are the only instances in active code that grep could find. Are you sure none of these need real spinlocks instead of just disabling interrupts? -- Brian Gerst ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/7] ppc: remove cli()/sti() from arch/ppc/* 2005-01-05 2:19 ` [PATCH 0/7] ppc: remove cli()/sti() from arch/ppc/* Brian Gerst @ 2005-01-05 2:44 ` Jim Nelson 2005-01-05 9:26 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jim Nelson @ 2005-01-05 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brian Gerst; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, paulus, linux-kernel Brian Gerst wrote: > James Nelson wrote: > >> This series of patches is to remove the last cli()/sti() function >> calls in arch/ppc. >> >> These are the only instances in active code that grep could find. > > > Are you sure none of these need real spinlocks instead of just > disabling interrupts? > > -- > Brian Gerst > These are for single-processor systems, mostly evaluation boards and embedded processors. I coudn't find any reference to multiprocessor setups for the processors in question after a peruse of the code or a quick google on the boards in question. Jim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/7] ppc: remove cli()/sti() from arch/ppc/* 2005-01-05 2:44 ` Jim Nelson @ 2005-01-05 9:26 ` Christoph Hellwig 2005-01-05 11:19 ` Jim Nelson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2005-01-05 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Nelson; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Brian Gerst, paulus, linux-kernel On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:44:06PM -0500, Jim Nelson wrote: > Brian Gerst wrote: > > >James Nelson wrote: > > > >>This series of patches is to remove the last cli()/sti() function > >>calls in arch/ppc. > >> > >>These are the only instances in active code that grep could find. > > > > > >Are you sure none of these need real spinlocks instead of just > >disabling interrupts? > > > >-- > > Brian Gerst > > > These are for single-processor systems, mostly evaluation boards and > embedded processors. I coudn't find any reference to multiprocessor > setups for the processors in question after a peruse of the code or a > quick google on the boards in question. think CONFIG_PREEMPT. In either case a spinlock becomes lock_irq_disable in the !SMP, !PREEMPT case but it documents the intention a whole lot better. Also you're locking only in a single plpace which is a ***BIG*** warning sign. At least look at the other users of the data structure, it's extremly likely they'll need locking aswell. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/7] ppc: remove cli()/sti() from arch/ppc/* 2005-01-05 9:26 ` Christoph Hellwig @ 2005-01-05 11:19 ` Jim Nelson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Jim Nelson @ 2005-01-05 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Brian Gerst, paulus, linux-kernel Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:44:06PM -0500, Jim Nelson wrote: > >>Brian Gerst wrote: >> >> >>>James Nelson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This series of patches is to remove the last cli()/sti() function >>>>calls in arch/ppc. >>>> >>>>These are the only instances in active code that grep could find. >>> >>> >>>Are you sure none of these need real spinlocks instead of just >>>disabling interrupts? >>> >>>-- >>> Brian Gerst >>> >> >>These are for single-processor systems, mostly evaluation boards and >>embedded processors. I coudn't find any reference to multiprocessor >>setups for the processors in question after a peruse of the code or a >>quick google on the boards in question. > > > think CONFIG_PREEMPT. In either case a spinlock becomes > lock_irq_disable in the !SMP, !PREEMPT case but it documents the > intention a whole lot better. > > Also you're locking only in a single plpace which is a ***BIG*** warning > sign. At least look at the other users of the data structure, it's > extremly likely they'll need locking aswell. > Some of the cli() uses were in shutdown and IRQ setup code, where you'd just need to disable interrupts. There are a few files that will need a more thourough going-through, however. I'll start checking those later. Jim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-01-05 11:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20050104214048.21749.85722.89116@localhost.localdomain>
2005-01-05 2:19 ` [PATCH 0/7] ppc: remove cli()/sti() from arch/ppc/* Brian Gerst
2005-01-05 2:44 ` Jim Nelson
2005-01-05 9:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-01-05 11:19 ` Jim Nelson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).