Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] b44: s/spin_lock_irqsave/spin_lock/ in b44_interrupt | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:08:37 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |