Return-path: Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:50591 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752418Ab0CZQZb (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:25:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/22] iwlwifi: change spin_lock to spin_lock_irqsave From: Pavel Roskin To: "Guy, Wey-Yi" Cc: "Chatre, Reinette" , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" In-Reply-To: <1269615842.5202.7.camel@wwguy-ubuntu> References: <1269549890-19195-1-git-send-email-reinette.chatre@intel.com> <1269549890-19195-22-git-send-email-reinette.chatre@intel.com> <1269551457.2626.12.camel@mj> <1269615842.5202.7.camel@wwguy-ubuntu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:25:29 -0400 Message-Id: <1269620729.6452.3.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 08:04 -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote: > There are two solutions. The first is to take the > lock with spin_lock_irqsave(). The second is to specify > IRQF_DISABLED to request_irq() so that the kernel runs the entire > interrupt routine with interrupts disabled. > > Since we do not need to hold the lock for the whole time interrupt > is running, the first solution is more suitable for it. OK, I wasn't aware of such details. I just didn't want that change to be done only because of sparse. I'm fine with the patch now. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin