Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Mar 2002 23:57:30 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.4.19-pre2] |
| |
We don't need the silly spinlock wrappers in 2.4 either.....
> > + * Wrapper for disabling interrupts. > + * (note : inline, so optimised away) > + */ > +static inline void > +wv_splhi(net_local * lp, > + unsigned long * pflags) > +{ > + spin_lock_irqsave(&lp->spinlock, *pflags); > + /* Note : above does the cli(); itself */ > +} > + > +/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/ > +/* > + * Wrapper for re-enabling interrupts. > + */ > +static inline void > +wv_splx(net_local * lp, > + unsigned long * pflags) > +{ > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lp->spinlock, *pflags); > + > + /* Note : enabling interrupts on the hardware is done in wv_ru_start() > + * via : outb(OP1_INT_ENABLE, LCCR(base)); > + */ > +} > +
-- Jeff Garzik | Usenet Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets Building 1024 | censorship as damage and routes around it." MandrakeSoft | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |