Re: [Q] net_device methods and disable_irq interaction (SMP&UP)

• Next message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: reading 1 hardsector size, not one block size"
• Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Linux 2.4-test9 kernel header flaw"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [Q] net_device methods and disable_irq interaction (SMP&UP)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Can spin_lock_irqsave and the disable_irq & spin_lock combinations be
> > safely mixed, particularly with regards to the networking layer? This does
> > not seem to be done anywhere in the kernel so I suspect that I'm trying
> > to do something wrong/bogus ...
>
> We do it on the 8390 and 3c509.

Thanks for the references Alan... just what I was looking for. Looks like
my 'grep' skills need some work :)

-- Hans.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: reading 1 hardsector size, not one block size"
• Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Linux 2.4-test9 kernel header flaw"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [Q] net_device methods and disable_irq interaction (SMP&UP)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:26 EST