Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:32:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:32:38 -0500 Received: from e23.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.229]:33951 "EHLO e23.esmtp.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:32:34 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] IBM Lanstreamer bugfixes To: jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com (Jeff Garzik) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: "Kent E Yoder" Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:32:31 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D04NM109/04/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9 |November 16, 2001) at 01/18/2002 05:32:33 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sorry, this mail was sent acidentally... but since its out here... > 5 & 11) Nope, I had not read Doc/networking/netdevices.txt, so I have a question. What does being inside rtnl_lock() imply other than the sleep > issues? > > The calls to cli() and save_flags() were wrong from the beginning. They were imported by the last maintainer since this driver is a modified version > of the olympic token ring driver. The current spin_lock() and spin_unlock() calls protect the srb_queued variable. If we were to set it to one and then > get interrupted before we actually write() to the srb, the interrupt function will try to service whatever junk happens to be in the srb. If going into the > interrupt function is covered by rtnl_lock(), this would be covered, but I guess its not (?).... actually I should be using spin_lock_irqsave() in open() and close() since the lock is taken inside the interrupt function, no? Kent - 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/