Re: [PATCH 1/2] rt/threadirqs: don't need to save irqs in do_hardirq()

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>]

Em Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 06:37:16PM -0500, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> 
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:24:59PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 07:27:08PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
> > > > do_hardirq() has only one caller do_irqd() in a path where irq are already
> > > > disabled. So we don't need to save irqs while holding desc->lock
> > > > 
> > > > Replace spin_lock_irqsave by spin_lock.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/irq/manage.c |    4 ++--
> > > >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > > > index ed7c5e3..6e9baf8 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > > > @@ -905,7 +905,7 @@ static void do_hardirq(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	unsigned long flags;
> > > 
> > > Can flags be removed too?
> > 
> > 
> > Actually... I cheated.
> > Once the two patches were done, I saw the unused variable warning. So I remade the second patch
> > to remove flags but..yes it should be on the first patch, I must confess...
> 
> That's fine, I'll pull both of them in.
> 
> Thanks Frederic!

Ditto, that was just a follow up thingy, nothing against the change :-)

- Arnaldo