On 2018-05-30 14:37:50 [+0100], John Garry wrote: > On 30/05/2018 12:22, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > 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(); > > Ah, I just noticed that this is spin_unlock(). > > So about the "TODO", which you mention "I *assumed* that the intention was > to audit the code for this > > spin_unlock_irq(ap->lock); > > change instead. But if this is or was never intended than I could indeed > remove the TODO comment." > > As I see, we're dropping the lock but maintaining the irq posture for > holding that lock (disabled), which seems inefficient.
excellent. So no more objections from your side or is this a complaint I didn't fully decode? > John > Sebastian
