Re: [patch] s390: do not use _local_bh_enable()

2007-02-23 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 15:04 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > [...] cio_tpi and sclp_sync_wait are used to wait for the interrupt of > > the console device to make room in the buffer for a printk out of > > disabled context. > > ouch. So you want/need to wait for a specific type of interrupt, in a

Re: [patch] s390: do not use _local_bh_enable()

2007-02-23 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] cio_tpi and sclp_sync_wait are used to wait for the interrupt of > the console device to make room in the buffer for a printk out of > disabled context. ouch. So you want/need to wait for a specific type of interrupt, in a section of cod

Re: [patch] s390: do not use _local_bh_enable()

2007-02-23 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 10:36 +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > Same here: this is not really an irq handler but a function that gets called > from different contexts and pretends to be an irq handler. The > local_bh_disable()/_local_bh_enable() pair is just a trick to prevent bottom > halve execution.

Re: [patch] s390: do not use _local_bh_enable()

2007-02-23 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 07:14:59AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Heiko, what do you think about the patch below - is there perhaps some > deeper reason to s390's _local_bh_enable() use that i missed? Yes, both of these usages are quite subtle. > Index: linux/drivers/s390/char/sclp.c > =

[patch] s390: do not use _local_bh_enable()

2007-02-22 Thread Ingo Molnar
Heiko, what do you think about the patch below - is there perhaps some deeper reason to s390's _local_bh_enable() use that i missed? Ingo --> Subject: [patch] s390: do not use _local_bh_enable() From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _local_bh_en