On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:03:59PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > I have to ask a dumb question, though. Might it not be better to add a > new set of functions like: > > local_softirq_disable(mask); > spin_lock_softirq(lock, mask); > > Then just define the existing functions to call the new ones with > SOFTIRQ_ALL_MASK? It would achieve something like the same result with > far less churn and conflict potential; then individual call sites could be > changed at leisure?
I was thinking the exact same thing... Thanks, Richard
