RE: [patch 3/3] Add tsi108 On Chip Ethernet device driver support

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 15:39 +0800, Zang Roy-r61911 wrote:

> > 
> > > +		spin_unlock_irq(&phy_lock);
> > > +		msleep(10);
> > > +		spin_lock_irq(&phy_lock);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > hmm some places take phy_lock with disabling interrupts, while others
> > don't. I sort of fear "the others" may be buggy.... are you sure those
> > are ok?
> Could you interpret your comments in detail?
> Roy

Hi,

sorry for being unclear/too short in the review.

The phy_lock lock is sometimes taken as spin_lock() and sometimes as
spin_lock_irq(). It looks likes it can be used in interrupt context, in
which case the spin_lock_irq() version is correct and the places where
spin_lock() is used would be a deadlock bug (just think what happens if
the interrupt happens while spin_lock(&phy_lock) is helt, and the
spinlock then again tries to take the lock!)

If there is no way this lock is used in interrupt context, then the
spin_lock_irq() version is doing something which is not needed and also
a bit expensive; so could be optimized.

But my impression is that the _irq() is needed. Also, please consider
switching from spin_lock_irq() to spin_lock_irqsave() version instead;
spin_unlock_irq() has some side effects (interrupts get enabled
unconditionally) so it is generally safer to use
spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore() API.

If you have more questions please do not hesitate to ask!

Greetings,
   Arjan van de Ven 
-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com

-
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/