On 2018-05-30 12:16:23 [+0100], John Garry wrote:
> On 30/05/2018 11:16, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-05-30 10:34:12 [+0100], John Garry wrote:
> > > Sorry, but personally I don't see much value in this change. I think it's
> > > better for safety to be consistent in how we lock & unlock the spinlock,
> > > i.e. use irqsave variant (or similar).
> >
> > The lock should do irqsave() and unlock irqrestore(). This
> > local_irqsave() + unlock() is not correct.
> >
>
> Aren't they the same, i.e. local_irq_save()+spin_lock() =
> spin_lock_irqsave()? Both give state of lock held, interrupts and preemption
> disabled.
Yes, there are the same on vanilla and not on RT. However my point is
that the code does this instead:
local_irq_save();
spin_unlock();
and this is wrong. There is no spin_unlock_irqsave().
>
> John
>
Sebastian
