On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 14:51:22.000000000 > +1000 > +++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 15:18:04.000000000 > +1000 > @@ -241,6 +241,16 @@ static inline void __deprecated save_and > #define save_and_cli(x) save_and_cli(&x) > #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */ > > +/* Some architectures might implement lazy enabling/disabling of > + * interrupts. In some cases, such as stop_machine, we might want > + * to ensure that after a local_irq_disable(), interrupts have > + * really been disabled in hardware. Such architectures need to > + * implement the following hook. > + */ > +#ifndef hard_irq_disable > +#define hard_irq_disable() do { } while(0) > +#endif We absolutely require that the architecture's hard_irq_disable() be defined when we do this. If it happens that the definition of hard_irq_disable() is implemented three levels deep in nested includes then we risk getting into a situation where different .c files see different implementations of hard_irq_disable(), which could lead to confusing results, to say the least. Your implementation comes via the inclusion of system.h which then includes hw_irq.h. That's perhaps a little fragile and it would be better to a) include in the comment the name of the arch file which must implement hard_irq_disable() and b) include that file directly from this one. Oh, and your comment layout style is wrong ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/