* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > So I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to make it out-of-line
> > > when TRACE_IRQFLAGS is off. This may make a difference because
> > > the networking stack is a frequent user
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > So I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to make it out-of-line when
> > TRACE_IRQFLAGS is off. This may make a difference because the
> > networking stack is a frequent user of local_bh_disable and
> > local_bh_enable.
>
> d
* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo:
>
> I noticed that local_bh_disable is now always out-of-line. The change
> was made when TRACE_IRQFLAGS was added. However, with TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> off, local_bh_disable does exactly the same work as before. In
> particular, it does pretty
Hi Ingo:
I noticed that local_bh_disable is now always out-of-line. The
change was made when TRACE_IRQFLAGS was added. However, with
TRACE_IRQFLAGS off, local_bh_disable does exactly the same work
as before. In particular, it does pretty much the same as what
preempt_disable does and the latter
