On 06/29/2010 10:08 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > Is it incorrect to have the following pattern? > spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock); > spin_unlock(q->queue_lock); > spin_lock(q->queue_lock); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock); >
Perfectly legitimate. spin_lock_irqsave() is equivalent to local_irq_save() followed by spin_lock() (with the potential optimization that we can service interrupts while spinning). -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
