On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 18:33 +0200, Saeed Mahameed wrote:

> Thanks for the detailed answer !!

You're welcome.

> BTW you went 5 steps ahead of my original question :)), so far you
> already have a patch without locking at all (really impressive).
> What i wanted to ask originally, was regarding the "_bh", i didn't
> mean to completely remove the "spin_lock_bh",
> I meant, what happens if we replace "spin_lock_bh"  with "spin_lock",
> without disabling bh ?
> I gues raw "sping_lock" handles points (2 to 4) from above, but it
> won't handle long irqs.

Thats a very good point, the _bh prefix can totally be removed, since
stats_lock is only acquired from process context.

Reply via email to