Re: [PATCH] b44: s/spin_lock_irqsave/spin_lock/ in b44_interrupt

On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 10:02 -0800, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> tree ece6ca6ed3844220c92e4b1207542864f70bad39
> parent 3353930d9d026ca94747d0766f864b2a0a8c714b
> author Francois Romieu <[email protected]> Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:52:06 +0100
> committer Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:37:05 -0500
> 
> [PATCH] b44: s/spin_lock_irqsave/spin_lock/ in b44_interrupt
> 
> There is no need to save/restore the irq state as the irq are always
> locally disabled when b44_interrupt is issued.


I don't actually buy this reasoning... what makes you so sure that this
is the case?



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Prev by Date: Re: latest mtd changes broke collie
• Next by Date: Re: [-mm patch] USB_LIBUSUAL shouldn't be user-visible
• Previous by thread: Fwd: Re: ext3_readdir() readahead problem
• Next by thread: [ANNOUNCE] Sluggard is a lazy translucent filesystem that may help to save resources
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]