Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 31 May 2006 13:55:45 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 |
| |
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > > It does that because it knows it's about to spend a long time talking > > > with the mii registers and it doesn't want to do that with interrupts > > > disabled. > > > > i still consider it a 'quirky' locking construct, because disabling > > interrupts for a long time also disables all other devices sharing the > > same IRQ line - not nice. > > > > Also, this is a really hard case for lockdep to detect > > automatically. (fortunately it's also relatively rare) > > What's the standard way to teach lockdep about this?
Not yet. One possibility would be to use existing locks and to get rid of the disable_irq(). One technique could be to disable the IRQ on the card (i think the code already does this), and then call synchronize_irq() instead of disable_irq().
Ingo - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |