[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0710271513210.30287-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:14:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <gregkh@...e.de>,
<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <matthew@....cx>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
<adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] USB HCD: avoid duplicate local_irq_disable()
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 12:01:37AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > usb_hcd_flush_endpoint() has a retry loop that starts with a spin_lock_irq(),
> > > but only gives up the spinlock, not the irq_disable before jumping to the
> > > rescan label.
> > >
> > > Split the spin_lock_irq into the retryable part and the local_irq_disable()
> > > that is only done once as a micro-optimization and slight cleanup.
> >
> > I agree with your sentiment, but it would be better to solve this
> > problem without using local_irq_disable(). The patch below does this.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
>
> Alan, is this something you want added to the tree and in before 2.6.24
> is out?
Yes. It's a small thing, but we're better off keeping IRQ
enable/disable calls properly balanced.
Alan Stern
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists