Re: [PATCH] b44: s/spin_lock_irqsave/spin_lock/ in b44_interrupt

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 10:02 -0800, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> tree ece6ca6ed3844220c92e4b1207542864f70bad39
> parent 3353930d9d026ca94747d0766f864b2a0a8c714b
> author Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:52:06 +0100
> committer Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/