On 06/19/2013 06:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> > On 06/19/2013 05:59 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> > > I'm well aware how that works. And there is no difference whether you
>>> > > do:
>>> > >
>>> > > local_irq_save(flags);
>>> > > spin_lock(&lock);
>>> > > or
>>> > > spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
>> >
>> > if CONFIG_LOCKDEP is not defined, they are not semantically the same.
> Care to explain _your_ spinlock semantics to me?
>
> The factual ones are:
>
> spin_lock_irqsave() returns with the lock held, interrupts and
> preemption disabled.
>
Yes.
> spin_lock() returns with the lock held, preemption disabled. It
> does not affect interrupt disabled/enabled state
>
Yes.
> So
> local_irq_save(flags);
> spin_lock(&lock);
>
> is semantically the same as
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
>
Yes (but reverse is NO).
> And this is completely independent of LOCKDEP.
NO.
spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
is not semantically the same as
local_irq_save(flags);
spin_lock(&lock);
It depend on the spin_lock_irqsave() implementation, if the parameters
has no relation ship with each other, semantically the same.
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
Asianux Corporation
--
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/
