On Thu, 22 Oct 2020, Tianxianting wrote:
> I see, If we add this patch, we need to get all cpu arch that support
> nested interrupts.
>
I was just calling into question 1. the benefit (does it improve
performance?) and 2. the code style (is it less portable?).
It's really the style question
...@broadcom.com;
shivasharan.srikanteshw...@broadcom.com; j...@linux.ibm.com;
martin.peter...@oracle.com; megaraidlinux@broadcom.com;
linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid_sas: use spin_lock() in hard IRQ
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020, Tianxianting wrote
...@broadcom.com; j...@linux.ibm.com;
martin.peter...@oracle.com; megaraidlinux@broadcom.com;
linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid_sas: use spin_lock() in hard IRQ
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, Xianting Tian wrote:
> Since we already in hard IRQ cont
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020, Tianxianting wrote:
> Do you mean Megasas raid can be used in m68k arch?
m68k is one example of an architecture on which the unstated assumptions
in your patch would be invalid. Does this help to clarify what I wrote?
If Megasas raid did work on m68k, I'm sure it could
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, Xianting Tian wrote:
> Since we already in hard IRQ context when running megasas_isr(),
On m68k, hard irq context does not mean interrupts are disabled. Are there
no other architectures in that category?
> so use spin_lock() is enough, which is faster than
5 matches
Mail list logo
