On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Borgi2008 wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 04.04.2007, 23:29 +0300 schrieb Antti Seppälä:
> > Borgi2008 wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > i've created a bugfixes. Hope it could helps you.
> > >
> > > Hendrik Borghorst
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Actually, looking at the code I cannot figure out why there has to be a
> > spinlock in the first place.
> >
> > The lock is only taken in the interrupt handler which already runs in
> > atomic context so there is no use in making the handler protected by a
> > spinlock. Am I missing something here?
> >
> > I think the spinlock is unnecessary and should be removed entirely.
Even on SMP systems? ISRs are only atomic on one CPU.
Patrick.
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
