Re: no DRQ after issuing WRITE was Re: 2.4.23-uv3 patch setreleased

[Rob Love]

On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 17:54, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Interrupts are _not_ disabled here, very much on purpose. If they were, 
> then "jiffies" wouldn't update, and the timeouts wouldn't work.
> 
> This is what that _stupid_ "local_irq_set()" function does: it saves the 
> old irq masking state, and then it enables it.
> 
> The whole concept doesn't make any sense. If you enable interrupts, there 
> is little point in saving the callers irq mask, since it already got 
> deflated.

Ah, OK.  local_irq_set() is worthless, then.

Curious to see the results of upping the timeout.

	Rob Love


-
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/