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/
[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]
