Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:47:24 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][ATM] assorted he driver cleanup |
| |
Em Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 06:42:54PM -0700, David S. Miller escreveu: > From: chas williams <chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil> > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:58:26 -0400 > > In message <1054497613.5863.4.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk>,Alan Cox writes: > >Then why are you using spin_lock_irqsave ? > > meaning just use spin_lock() or what? > > Alan/Chas, there are two different issues here: > > 1) Aparently the bug only needs to be worked around when > multiple cpus can access the card at the same time. > > Therefore on uniprocessor the bug isn't relevant. > > 2) Therefore, the lock needs to protect register accesses > from all contexts. Therefore he needs an IRQ protecting > lock. > > Therefore it isn't legal for him to use a non-IRQ protecting > spinlock. > > I personally don't think it's worth all the maintainence cost > to special case all of this junk for uniprocessor.
Agreed.
- Arnaldo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |