On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:26:09AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > down() looks OK, but there's still a spin_lock_irq() in __down_common(), > although I don't know if it makes sense for us to be in __down() at that > stage.
The spin_lock_irq in __down_common is correct. We're going to schedule(), so we spin_unlock_irq() to save us passing the flags into the helper function. If we had interrupts disabled on entry, there's an Aieee for that. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev