![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > Without having looked at it very hard, I'd venture that this is a > false positive - that driver uses disable_irq() to prevent reentry > onto that lock. correct. > It does that because it knows it's about to spend a long time talking > with the mii registers and it doesn't want to do that with interrupts > disabled. i still consider it a 'quirky' locking construct, because disabling interrupts for a long time also disables all other devices sharing the same IRQ line - not nice. Also, this is a really hard case for lockdep to detect automatically. (fortunately it's also relatively rare) OTOH, the straightforward lockdep workaround would be to take the spinlock and thus disable all local interrupts - not too nice either. Albeit in some ways it's still a bit nicer conceptually than disabling the irq line, because other CPUs are still operational, and under certain locking designs [preempt-rt] spin_lock_irq() does not disable local interrupts. Steve, can you think of any better solution? I dont have this card. Ingo - 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: 2006-05-31 08:33 [W:0.291 / U:0.190 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||