Re: [Fwd: extra spinlocking in forcedeth 0.25]

[Andrew de Quincey <adq@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 14 April 2004 17:45, you wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> could you have a look at the attached mail regarding spinlocking in your
> WOL patch for forcedeth?

> In 0.23 -> 0.25 forcedeth diff I noticed this:
> 
> +       case ETHTOOL_GWOL:
> +       {
> +               struct ethtool_wolinfo wolinfo;
> +               memset(&wolinfo, 0, sizeof(wolinfo));
> +               wolinfo.supported = WAKE_MAGIC;
> +
> +               spin_lock_irq(&np->lock);
> +               if (np->wolenabled)
> +                       wolinfo.wolopts = WAKE_MAGIC;
> +               spin_unlock_irq(&np->lock);
> +
> +               if (copy_to_user(useraddr, &wolinfo, sizeof(wolinfo)))
> +                       return -EFAULT;
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> 
> IMHO this pair of lock()/unlock() is not needed
> and can be safely removed.

Yeah, he's right. Absolutely no need for it there.