[PATCH RFC 0/7] "NAND on UPM" and related patches
Scott Wood
scottwood at freescale.com
Thu Dec 13 08:06:54 EST 2007
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> As the compromise I might suggest this: forbid pattern_start/pattern_end
> from the ISRs (by marking them as might_sleep()), and replace _irqsave
> spinlock with simple spinlock.
No, you cannot use a bare spinlock with IRQs enabled. You'll deadlock
on SMP, and you'll have races with preemption enabled.
> Given that, personally I'd want to lockless variant to stay.
>
> So, you still want to get rid of it?
Yes, in the absence of benchmarking that shows it makes a real
difference. Premature optimization being the root of all evil, and what
not.
-Scott
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list