Quoting r. Libor Michalek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: Re: [Andrew Morton] inappropriate use of in_atomic() > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:12:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Quoting r. Libor Michalek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Subject: Re: Re: [Andrew Morton] inappropriate use of in_atomic() > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:31:08AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > Sdp also has a couple of uses. > > > > Maybe we can use the atomic branch in all cases here, as well? > > > > Libor? > > > > > > Yes, the case in sdp_iocb.c can probably always take the atomic > > > path. The kmap/kunmap cases really only care whether we're in an > > > interrupt, so switching to in_interrupt() should be sufficient. > > > > Recent comments by Andrew indicate that it is better to always > > use kmap_atomic/kunmap_atomic if possible. This will also > > let us get rid of the wrapper function, which is good. > > > > Why do you think we need to kmap? > > I didn't realize that the atomic version was prefered over the > regular kmap. The only thing that needs to be done is to make sure > that the local CPU interrupts are off before calling kamp_atomic, > instead we currently check to see if we're in an interrupt and call > the appropriate function. I have no problem changing it to just > atomic. > > -Libor >
And disable/enable local interrupts? -- MST - Michael S. Tsirkin _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
