>>> On 05.12.14 at 18:22, <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:55:24PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >> @@ -763,17 +762,28 @@ void __init console_init_postirq(void) >> } >> opt_conring_size = PAGE_SIZE << order; >> >> - spin_lock_irq(&console_lock); >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&console_lock, flags); > > I am not sure why are you change spin_lock_irq() to spin_lock_irqsave() > here. > Could you explain this in commit message?
I think this is quite obvious in the context here: Previously this was guaranteed to be called after interrupts were already enabled (hence the _postirq name). That's not the case anymore, and thus we can't blindly enable interrupts when releasing the lock. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
