Message-Id: <200306011858.h51IwlsG022457@ginger.cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>
cc: davem@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ATM] assorted he driver cleanup 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 May 2003 14:36:37 -0300."
             <20030529173637.GZ24054@conectiva.com.br> 
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:57:02 -0400
From: chas williams <chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 790
Lines: 14

In message <20030529173637.GZ24054@conectiva.com.br>,Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo writes:
>Sure thing, but hey, spin_lock_irqsave and friends take care of how to behave
>when in up or smp, i.e. its how all the other drivers use spinlocks 8)

but on a single processor machine (i.e. #undef CONFIG_SMP) there is no
chance that there will be reads/writes from other processors so i dont
need any locking OR protection from interrupts.  so the degenerate case
of spin_lock_irqsave() isnt quite as dengerate as i would like for this
particular spin lock.
-
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/