* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:28:59 +0200
> Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > --- linux-2.6.17-rc5-mm1.5.orig/drivers/net/8390.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.17-rc5-mm1.5/drivers/net/8390.c
> > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int ei_start_xmit(struct sk_buff
> >
> > disable_irq_nosync(dev->irq);
> >
> > - spin_lock(&ei_local->page_lock);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ei_local->page_lock, flags);
>
> Again, notabug - we did disable_irq().
>
> I think lockdep needs to be taught about this idiom. Perhaps add a
> new disable_irq_tell_lockdep() which assumes that we're in an
> equivalent-to-local_irq_disable() state.
agreed. I'll cook up an API for that. The best would be to disable local
irqs if LOCKDEP is enabled - i.e. how about disable_irq_lockdep() that
maps to disable_irq() if !LOCKDEP and on LOCKDEP it also disables local
interrupts? Likewise there would be an enable_irq_lockdep() which would
re-enable local irqs.
Ingo
-
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]
