lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RESEND] serial: 8250_bcm7271: move spin_lock_irqsave to spin_lock in interrupt handler
No, whether it's spin_lock_irqsave() or spin_lock(), the security is
the same. Since this commit:e58aa3d2d0cc01ad8d6f7f640a0670433f794922,
interrupt nesting is disabled, which means interrupts has disabled in
the interrupt handlers. So, it is unnecessary to call
spin_lock_irqsave in a interrupt handler. And it takes less time
obviously to use spin_lock(),so I think this change is needed.

Finally, I'm sorry I lacked real hardware to verify it and can't
provide changelog text.

Thanks.

Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 于2022年8月22日周一 22:25写道:
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:11:10PM +0800, Tuo Cao wrote:
> > it is unnecessary to call spin_lock_irqsave in a interrupt handler.
>
> Yes, but it is safer to do so, right?
>
> Why is this change needed?
>
> Did you test it on real hardware to verify it works?
>
> We need a lot more information in the changelog text before being able
> to accept this.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-27 11:43    [W:0.074 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site