David Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:30:23AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:12:33PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> The "s" in these locking macros used to be used like flags
>>> in spin_lock_irqsave; but in the xfs codebase today it's
>>> never used.
>>>
>>> gcc optimizes it away, but still, why keep it around?
>> If we change away from the IRIX compatible signatures we could just
>> kill the lock wrappers aswell..
>
> Hmmm - decisions, decisions... ;)
>
> I think killing the wrappers entirely is probably the correct thing
> to do. stuff like AIL_LOCK and GRANT_LOCK have long just been a
> wrapper around a spinlock with no other purpose except to shout at
> you.
>
> If we are going to kill the spl return from the spinlocks, then
> lets just churn this once. I'll sit on this one for a bit....
>
> FWIW, Eric, if you do decide to modify the patch to kill all the
> wrappers, can you send them as a patch-per-wrapper, just to make
> it easy to review?
Ok...
Russell suggested "xfs_spinlock" ;-) I assume you want to just use the
linux native locking calls?
-Eric
|