Message-Id: <200306012300.h51N0AsG023776@ginger.cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>, davem@redhat.com,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ATM] assorted he driver cleanup 
In-reply-to: Your message of "01 Jun 2003 21:00:15 BST."
             <1054497613.5863.4.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> 
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:58:26 -0400
From: chas williams <chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 734
Lines: 15

In message <1054497613.5863.4.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk>,Alan Cox writes:
>> 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.
>
>Then why are you using spin_lock_irqsave ?

meaning just use spin_lock() or what?
-
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/