Re: [PATCH]Re: spin_locks without smp.

From: Manfred Spraul (manfred@colorfullife.com)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 12:19:55 EST


Alan wrote:

>On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 13:04, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Okay, what I'm getting here is that the UP case already has preempt
>> disabled b/c the locks are taken in IRQ context?
>
>The tx/timeout path isnt always in IRQ context.
>
It is.
tx and timeout are both called at BH context with the dev_xmit spinlock
held. See Documentation/networking/netdevices.txt

What about

    disable_irq();
    spin_lock(&np->lock);

That's what 8390.c uses, no need for an #ifdef.

--
    Manfred

- 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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:33 EST