* [PATCH 10/19] UML - Remove spinlock wrapper functions
@ 2006-07-07 0:33 Jeff Dike
[not found] ` <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Dike @ 2006-07-07 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: linux-kernel, user-mode-linux-devel
The irq_spinlock is not needed from user code any more, so the
irq_lock and irq_unlock wrappers can go away. This also changes the
name of the lock to irq_lock.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>
Index: linux-2.6.17/arch/um/include/irq_user.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.17.orig/arch/um/include/irq_user.h 2006-07-06 13:27:58.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.17/arch/um/include/irq_user.h 2006-07-06 13:28:14.000000000 -0400
@@ -29,8 +29,6 @@ extern void reactivate_fd(int fd, int ir
extern void deactivate_fd(int fd, int irqnum);
extern int deactivate_all_fds(void);
extern int activate_ipi(int fd, int pid);
-extern unsigned long irq_lock(void);
-extern void irq_unlock(unsigned long flags);
#ifdef CONFIG_MODE_TT
extern void forward_interrupts(int pid);
Index: linux-2.6.17/arch/um/kernel/irq.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.17.orig/arch/um/kernel/irq.c 2006-07-06 13:27:58.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.17/arch/um/kernel/irq.c 2006-07-06 13:28:43.000000000 -0400
@@ -123,6 +123,8 @@ static void maybe_sigio_broken(int fd, i
}
}
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(irq_lock);
+
int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int type, void *dev_id)
{
struct pollfd *tmp_pfd;
@@ -166,7 +168,7 @@ int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int typ
* this is called only from process context, and can be locked with
* a semaphore.
*/
- flags = irq_lock();
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
for (irq_fd = active_fds; irq_fd != NULL; irq_fd = irq_fd->next) {
if ((irq_fd->fd == fd) && (irq_fd->type == type)) {
printk("Registering fd %d twice\n", fd);
@@ -199,7 +201,7 @@ int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int typ
* so we will not be able to put new pollfd struct to pollfds
* then we free the buffer tmp_fds and try again.
*/
- irq_unlock(flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
kfree(tmp_pfd);
tmp_pfd = NULL;
@@ -207,14 +209,14 @@ int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int typ
if (tmp_pfd == NULL)
goto out_kfree;
- flags = irq_lock();
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
}
/*-------------*/
*last_irq_ptr = new_fd;
last_irq_ptr = &new_fd->next;
- irq_unlock(flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
/* This calls activate_fd, so it has to be outside the critical
* section.
@@ -224,7 +226,7 @@ int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int typ
return(0);
out_unlock:
- irq_unlock(flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
out_kfree:
kfree(new_fd);
out:
@@ -235,9 +237,9 @@ static void free_irq_by_cb(int (*test)(s
{
unsigned long flags;
- flags = irq_lock();
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
os_free_irq_by_cb(test, arg, active_fds, &last_irq_ptr);
- irq_unlock(flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
}
struct irq_and_dev {
@@ -304,14 +306,14 @@ void reactivate_fd(int fd, int irqnum)
unsigned long flags;
int i;
- flags = irq_lock();
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
irq = find_irq_by_fd(fd, irqnum, &i);
if (irq == NULL) {
- irq_unlock(flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
return;
}
os_set_pollfd(i, irq->fd);
- irq_unlock(flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
/* This calls activate_fd, so it has to be outside the critical
* section.
@@ -325,13 +327,13 @@ void deactivate_fd(int fd, int irqnum)
unsigned long flags;
int i;
- flags = irq_lock();
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
irq = find_irq_by_fd(fd, irqnum, &i);
if (irq == NULL)
goto out;
os_set_pollfd(i, -1);
out:
- irq_unlock(flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
}
int deactivate_all_fds(void)
@@ -357,7 +359,7 @@ void forward_interrupts(int pid)
unsigned long flags;
int err;
- flags = irq_lock();
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
for (irq = active_fds; irq != NULL; irq = irq->next) {
err = os_set_owner(irq->fd, pid);
if (err < 0) {
@@ -370,7 +372,7 @@ void forward_interrupts(int pid)
irq->pid = pid;
}
- irq_unlock(flags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
}
#endif
@@ -405,21 +407,6 @@ int um_request_irq(unsigned int irq, int
EXPORT_SYMBOL(um_request_irq);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(reactivate_fd);
-static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(irq_spinlock);
-
-unsigned long irq_lock(void)
-{
- unsigned long flags;
-
- spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_spinlock, flags);
- return flags;
-}
-
-void irq_unlock(unsigned long flags)
-{
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_spinlock, flags);
-}
-
/* hw_interrupt_type must define (startup || enable) &&
* (shutdown || disable) && end */
static void dummy(unsigned int irq)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [uml-devel] [PATCH 10/19] UML - Remove spinlock wrapper functions
[not found] ` <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2006-08-04 13:02 ` alessandro salvatori
2006-08-04 14:14 ` Jeff Dike
2006-08-05 11:47 ` Blaisorblade
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: alessandro salvatori @ 2006-08-04 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Jeff,
the new lock irq_lock is still static, but we now have
preprocessor macros to be included from a header file instead of
non-static functions in the same module as the static irq_lock.
Am I missing something?
cheers
Alessandro Salvatori
On 7/7/06, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> wrote:
> The irq_spinlock is not needed from user code any more, so the
> irq_lock and irq_unlock wrappers can go away. This also changes the
> name of the lock to irq_lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike < jdike@addtoit.com>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.17/arch/um/include/irq_user.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17.orig/arch/um/include/irq_user.h 2006-07-06 13:27:58.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.17/arch/um/include/irq_user.h 2006-07-06 13:28:14.000000000 -0400
> @@ -29,8 +29,6 @@ extern void reactivate_fd(int fd, int ir
> extern void deactivate_fd(int fd, int irqnum);
> extern int deactivate_all_fds(void);
> extern int activate_ipi(int fd, int pid);
> -extern unsigned long irq_lock(void);
> -extern void irq_unlock(unsigned long flags);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MODE_TT
> extern void forward_interrupts(int pid);
> Index: linux-2.6.17/arch/um/kernel/irq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17.orig/arch/um/kernel/irq.c 2006-07-06 13:27:58.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.17 /arch/um/kernel/irq.c 2006-07-06 13:28:43.000000000 -0400
> @@ -123,6 +123,8 @@ static void maybe_sigio_broken(int fd, i
> }
> }
>
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(irq_lock);
> +
> int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int type, void *dev_id)
> {
> struct pollfd *tmp_pfd;
> @@ -166,7 +168,7 @@ int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int typ
> * this is called only from process context, and can be locked with
> * a semaphore.
> */
> - flags = irq_lock();
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
> for (irq_fd = active_fds; irq_fd != NULL; irq_fd = irq_fd->next) {
> if ((irq_fd->fd == fd) && (irq_fd->type == type)) {
> printk("Registering fd %d twice\n", fd);
> @@ -199,7 +201,7 @@ int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int typ
> * so we will not be able to put new pollfd struct to pollfds
> * then we free the buffer tmp_fds and try again.
> */
> - irq_unlock(flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
> kfree(tmp_pfd);
> tmp_pfd = NULL;
>
> @@ -207,14 +209,14 @@ int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int typ
> if (tmp_pfd == NULL)
> goto out_kfree;
>
> - flags = irq_lock();
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
> }
> /*-------------*/
>
> *last_irq_ptr = new_fd;
> last_irq_ptr = &new_fd->next;
>
> - irq_unlock(flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
>
> /* This calls activate_fd, so it has to be outside the critical
> * section.
> @@ -224,7 +226,7 @@ int activate_fd(int irq, int fd, int typ
> return(0);
>
> out_unlock:
> - irq_unlock(flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
> out_kfree:
> kfree(new_fd);
> out:
> @@ -235,9 +237,9 @@ static void free_irq_by_cb(int (*test)(s
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - flags = irq_lock();
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
> os_free_irq_by_cb(test, arg, active_fds, &last_irq_ptr);
> - irq_unlock(flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
> }
>
> struct irq_and_dev {
> @@ -304,14 +306,14 @@ void reactivate_fd(int fd, int irqnum)
> unsigned long flags;
> int i;
>
> - flags = irq_lock();
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
> irq = find_irq_by_fd(fd, irqnum, &i);
> if (irq == NULL) {
> - irq_unlock(flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
> return;
> }
> os_set_pollfd(i, irq->fd);
> - irq_unlock(flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
>
> /* This calls activate_fd, so it has to be outside the critical
> * section.
> @@ -325,13 +327,13 @@ void deactivate_fd(int fd, int irqnum)
> unsigned long flags;
> int i;
>
> - flags = irq_lock();
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
> irq = find_irq_by_fd(fd, irqnum, &i);
> if (irq == NULL)
> goto out;
> os_set_pollfd(i, -1);
> out:
> - irq_unlock(flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
> }
>
> int deactivate_all_fds(void)
> @@ -357,7 +359,7 @@ void forward_interrupts(int pid)
> unsigned long flags;
> int err;
>
> - flags = irq_lock();
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_lock, flags);
> for (irq = active_fds; irq != NULL; irq = irq->next) {
> err = os_set_owner(irq->fd, pid);
> if (err < 0) {
> @@ -370,7 +372,7 @@ void forward_interrupts(int pid)
>
> irq->pid = pid;
> }
> - irq_unlock(flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_lock, flags);
> }
> #endif
>
> @@ -405,21 +407,6 @@ int um_request_irq(unsigned int irq, int
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(um_request_irq);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(reactivate_fd);
>
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(irq_spinlock);
> -
> -unsigned long irq_lock(void)
> -{
> - unsigned long flags;
> -
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_spinlock, flags);
> - return flags;
> -}
> -
> -void irq_unlock(unsigned long flags)
> -{
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_spinlock, flags);
> -}
> -
> /* hw_interrupt_type must define (startup || enable) &&
> * (shutdown || disable) && end */
> static void dummy(unsigned int irq)
>
>
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
> User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
>
--
Alessandro Salvatori
--
Alessandro Salvatori
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 10/19] UML - Remove spinlock wrapper functions
[not found] ` <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com>
2006-08-04 13:02 ` [uml-devel] " alessandro salvatori
@ 2006-08-04 14:14 ` Jeff Dike
2006-08-05 11:47 ` Blaisorblade
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Dike @ 2006-08-04 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: alessandro salvatori; +Cc: akpm, linux-kernel, user-mode-linux-devel
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:00:43PM +0000, alessandro salvatori wrote:
> the new lock irq_lock is still static, but we now have preprocessor
> macros to be included from a header file instead of non-static functions in
> the same module as the static irq_lock.
I don't understand. The changes in this patch are -
remove two functions and their declarations
replace calls to those functions with spin_lock_irq_save and
spin_unlock_irqsave
move the spinlock declaration above the spin_(un)lock_irq_save
calls
Which of these are you talking about?
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 10/19] UML - Remove spinlock wrapper functions
[not found] ` <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com>
2006-08-04 13:02 ` [uml-devel] " alessandro salvatori
2006-08-04 14:14 ` Jeff Dike
@ 2006-08-05 11:47 ` Blaisorblade
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Blaisorblade @ 2006-08-05 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: user-mode-linux-devel, sandr8; +Cc: Jeff Dike, linux-kernel
On Friday 04 August 2006 15:00, alessandro salvatori wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> the new lock irq_lock is still static, but we now have preprocessor
> macros to be included from a header file
Are you talking about spin_lock_irqsave & co? In that case you have maybe
missed that the removed functions were simply wrappers for spin_lock_irqsave.
Those wrappers existed to be used in files which can't include kernel headers
(long story).
> instead of non-static functions in
> the same module as the static irq_lock.
> Am I missing something?
--
Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-05 11:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-07-07 0:33 [PATCH 10/19] UML - Remove spinlock wrapper functions Jeff Dike
[not found] ` <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com>
2006-08-04 13:02 ` [uml-devel] " alessandro salvatori
2006-08-04 14:14 ` Jeff Dike
2006-08-05 11:47 ` Blaisorblade
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).