lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] b44: s/spin_lock_irqsave/spin_lock/ in b44_interrupt
From
Date
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 10:02 -0800, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> tree ece6ca6ed3844220c92e4b1207542864f70bad39
> parent 3353930d9d026ca94747d0766f864b2a0a8c714b
> author Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com> Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:52:06 +0100
> committer Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> 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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-10 13:11    [W:0.027 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site