On 11/06/2018 15:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
This is the repost of the two patches I posted in earlier this month:
- [PATCH 1/2] libsas: remove irq save in sas_ata_qc_issue()
Received feedback but nothing really changed. I explained that this is
not about "local_irqsave() + spin_lock()" *but* "local_irq_save() +
spin_unlock()". This seemed to have been overseen twice.
Also there were two opinions about the TODO comment:
/* TODO: audit callers to ensure they are ready for qc_issue to
* unconditionally re-enable interrupts
It is unclear to me if this comment should be removed because it
makes no sense or if the intention was indeed to audit callers code
for a possible "spin_unlock_irq(ap->lock);".
Hi,
As I said previously, since it is not clear now what the comment meant,
then removing the irq save/restore calls will only make it even less
clear, and should be fixed.
Cheers,
John
- [PATCH 2/2] qla2xxx: remove irq save in qla2x00_poll()
Received no feedback.
Sebastian
.
