netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 07:32:20 +1000
Cc: Mark Broadbent <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050502124358.7186447f.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E1DRFqC-00028H-Qi@tigger> <E1DRGWv-0003aa-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050429093521.274adf9a.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050429224931.GA18616@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <427623B8.8050107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050502124358.7186447f.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:43:58PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
> Now, a seperate issue.  If we wish to disable IRQs at all for another
> reason (say to make the critical section not get interrupted by timers
> or some other device's handler) than we must use _irqsave/_irqrestore
> instead of _irq because there is no guarentee whether IRQs are disabled
> upon entry to an IRQ handler or not.  The SA_INTERRUPT behavior is not

Agreed.

However, AFAIK the tulip driver doesn't care about other interrupts.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>