Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:37:04 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] softirq: Make softirqs soft-interruptible (+
 per vector disablement)
Message-ID: <20181016233704.7foq5jxvi5mn57jd@localhost>
References: <1539213137-13953-1-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20181016160359.5523ae90@lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181016160359.5523ae90@lwn.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:03:59PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I have to ask a dumb question, though.  Might it not be better to add a
> new set of functions like:
> 
> 	local_softirq_disable(mask);
> 	spin_lock_softirq(lock, mask);
> 
> Then just define the existing functions to call the new ones with
> SOFTIRQ_ALL_MASK?  It would achieve something like the same result with
> far less churn and conflict potential; then individual call sites could be
> changed at leisure?

I was thinking the exact same thing...

Thanks,
Richard