From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Haavard Skinnemoen Subject: Re: [PATCH] macb: Add support of the netpoll API Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:41:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20090417134137.77b5dbd7@hskinnemoen-d830> References: <20090417112553.21e1f2e5@hskinnemoen-d830> <20090417.023357.121366056.davem@davemloft.net> <20090417115011.5c3d17e1@hskinnemoen-d830> <20090417.034416.110856368.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, michael@free-electrons.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from relay.atmel.no ([80.232.32.139]:60438 "EHLO relay.atmel.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756349AbZDQLlt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:41:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090417.034416.110856368.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Haavard Skinnemoen > Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:50:11 +0200 > > > No, therefore, I'd prefer local_irq_save() :-) > > I'm pretty sure there is a specific reason driver's use > disable_irq() rather than disabling local cpu IRQs. Looks like most if not all of the ARM drivers use local_irq_save()...I couldn't figure out what etherh does from a quick scan. > I just can't remember it at the moment. > > And there absolutely must be a reason, because disable_irq() > is a lot more expensive. Sounds like another reason _not_ to use it ;-) Well, if you're really sure about this, I guess you might as well go ahead and apply it. But it feels wrong to Ack the patch when I don't know the reason for using disable_irq() and can think of several reasons _not_ to use it... Haavard