> -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@arndb.de] > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 7:57 PM > To: Liu Qiang-B32616 > Cc: linux-cry...@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org; > dan.j.willi...@intel.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > dan.j.willi...@gmail.com; vinod.k...@intel.com; Phillips Kim-R1AAHA; > herb...@gondor.hengli.com.au; da...@davemloft.net; > gre...@linuxfoundation.org; Li Yang-R58472; Tabi Timur-B04825 > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] fsl-dma: use spin_lock_bh to instead of > spin_lock_irqsave > > On Monday 06 August 2012, qiang....@freescale.com wrote: > > > > From: Qiang Liu <qiang....@freescale.com> > > > > The use of spin_lock_irqsave() is a stronger locking mechanism than is > > required throughout the driver. The minimum locking required should be > > used instead. Interrupts will be turned off and context will be saved, > > there is needless to use irqsave. > > > > Change all instances of spin_lock_irqsave() to spin_lock_bh(). > > All manipulation of protected fields is done using tasklet context or > > weaker, which makes spin_lock_bh() the correct choice. > > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@gmail.com> > > Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.k...@intel.com> > > Cc: Li Yang <le...@freescale.com> > > Cc: Timur Tabi <ti...@freescale.com> > > Signed-off-by: Qiang Liu <qiang....@freescale.com> > > Acked-by: Ira W. Snyder <i...@ovro.caltech.edu> > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> > > You could actually change the use of spin_lock_bh inside of the tasklet > function (dma_do_tasklet) do just spin_lock(), because softirqs are > already disabled there, but your version is also ok. Yes, you are right, it will disable softirq. Thank you very much.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
