From: Hariprasad Shenai <haripra...@chelsio.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:03:02 +0530
> @@ -3585,9 +3585,11 @@ static void disable_txq_db(struct sge_txq *q)
>
> static void enable_txq_db(struct sge_txq *q)
> {
> - spin_lock_irq(&q->db_lock);
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&q->db_lock, flags);
> q->db_disabled = 0;
> - spin_unlock_irq(&q->db_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->db_lock, flags);
> }
>
> static void disable_dbs(struct adapter *adap)
> @@ -3617,9 +3619,10 @@ static void enable_dbs(struct adapter *adap)
At least be consistent when making changes like this.
You are changing from spin_{un,}lock_irq() to
spin_{un,}lock_irq{save,restore}() here in enable_txq_db()
but not in disable_txq_db().
But both of those functions are invoked, via one level of
indirection, from the same exact function: process_db_drop()
Futhermore, this function process_db_drop() runs via a workqueue, and
therefore always runs with interrupts enabled. So you shouldn't need
to use the save/restore spinlock variants at all. Plain
spin_lock_irq() and spin_unlock_irq(), as is currently coded, is
perfectly fine.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
