On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 19:29 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 01:53 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 01:50:36 -0700
> >
> > > We discussed this a couple of months back. davem landed firmly in the
> > >
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 01:53 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 01:50:36 -0700
>
> > We discussed this a couple of months back. davem landed firmly in the
> > second camp and everyone then shut up ;)
>
> No I landed in the first :-)))
>
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 01:50:36 -0700
> We discussed this a couple of months back. davem landed firmly in the
> second camp and everyone then shut up ;)
No I landed in the first :-)))
I think the empty lines are a waste and only serve to eat
up precious
On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:41:45 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > > What about my comment layout style ? I've been using that forever ... Or
> > > do you mean I should use a function documentation style layout there ?
> >
> > /* This
> > * is
> > * wrong
> > */
> >
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:41:45 +1000
>
> > > What about my comment layout style ? I've been using that forever ... Or
> > > do you mean I should use a function documentation style layout there ?
> >
> > /* This
> > * is
> > * wrong
> > */
> >
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 13:24 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> But then, what _is_ the problem with your approach above? An arch that
> wants (and implements) hard_irq_disable will also #define that dummy
> macro, so we just need to pull in the appropriate header (directly,
> indirectly, anyhow -- we
> > What about my comment layout style ? I've been using that forever ... Or
> > do you mean I should use a function documentation style layout there ?
>
> /* This
> * is
> * wrong
> */
>
> /*
> * This
> * is
> * right
> */
Hrm... how bad are you about that one ? I must say I prefer my
On 5/10/07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that this mechanism forces the arch (that really
> wants hard_irq_disable) to _#define_ hard_irq_disable (as a macro),
> and if it implements it as an inline function, for example, then we're
> screwed?
No. The
On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:35:51 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 22:41 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > --- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h
> So you're saying that this mechanism forces the arch (that really
> wants hard_irq_disable) to _#define_ hard_irq_disable (as a macro),
> and if it implements it as an inline function, for example, then we're
> screwed?
No. The idea is to do like we did for a few other things already
Hi Andrew,
On 5/10/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> --- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 14:51:22.0
+1000
> +++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 22:41 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > --- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10
> > 14:51:22.0 +1000
> > +++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 22:41 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10
14:51:22.0 +1000
+++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h2007-05-10
Hi Andrew,
On 5/10/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 14:51:22.0
+1000
+++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10
So you're saying that this mechanism forces the arch (that really
wants hard_irq_disable) to _#define_ hard_irq_disable (as a macro),
and if it implements it as an inline function, for example, then we're
screwed?
No. The idea is to do like we did for a few other things already
(according to
On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:35:51 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 22:41 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
--- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10
On 5/10/07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying that this mechanism forces the arch (that really
wants hard_irq_disable) to _#define_ hard_irq_disable (as a macro),
and if it implements it as an inline function, for example, then we're
screwed?
No. The idea is
What about my comment layout style ? I've been using that forever ... Or
do you mean I should use a function documentation style layout there ?
/* This
* is
* wrong
*/
/*
* This
* is
* right
*/
Hrm... how bad are you about that one ? I must say I prefer my style :-)
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 13:24 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
But then, what _is_ the problem with your approach above? An arch that
wants (and implements) hard_irq_disable will also #define that dummy
macro, so we just need to pull in the appropriate header (directly,
indirectly, anyhow -- we don't
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:41:45 +1000
What about my comment layout style ? I've been using that forever ... Or
do you mean I should use a function documentation style layout there ?
/* This
* is
* wrong
*/
/*
* This
*
On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:41:45 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What about my comment layout style ? I've been using that forever ... Or
do you mean I should use a function documentation style layout there ?
/* This
* is
* wrong
*/
/*
* This
*
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 01:50:36 -0700
We discussed this a couple of months back. davem landed firmly in the
second camp and everyone then shut up ;)
No I landed in the first :-)))
I think the empty lines are a waste and only serve to eat
up precious
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 01:53 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 01:50:36 -0700
We discussed this a couple of months back. davem landed firmly in the
second camp and everyone then shut up ;)
No I landed in the first :-)))
I think
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 19:29 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 01:53 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 01:50:36 -0700
We discussed this a couple of months back. davem landed firmly in the
second camp and
On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> --- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 14:51:22.0
> +1000
> +++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 15:18:04.0
> +1000
> @@ -241,6 +241,16 @@ static inline
Some architectures, like powerpc, implement lazy disabling of
interrupts. That means that on those, local_irq_disable() doesn't
actually disable interrupts on the CPU, but only sets some per
CPU flag which cause them to be disabled only if an interrupt actually
occurs.
However, in some cases,
Some architectures, like powerpc, implement lazy disabling of
interrupts. That means that on those, local_irq_disable() doesn't
actually disable interrupts on the CPU, but only sets some per
CPU flag which cause them to be disabled only if an interrupt actually
occurs.
However, in some cases,
On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 14:51:22.0
+1000
+++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h 2007-05-10 15:18:04.0
+1000
@@ -241,6 +241,16 @@ static inline void
28 matches
Mail list logo
