[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0910190932030.8582@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:35:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@...phys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] [RFC] ataflop: remove buggy IRQ disable from
do_fd_request()
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > The patch is not removing any locking. It only
> >
> > 1) removes the local_irq_disable() that has been commented out for many
> > years already anyway
> > 2) removes the saving and restoring of CPU flags around do_fd_request(),
> > which is rather clearly a nop than any kind of "locking"
> >
> > > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/12/27/58
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> > >
> > > NAck for my part.
> >
> > Please elaborate a little bit more which of the two points above you base
> > your NACK on.
>
> The removal of local_irq_disable() (which should have been local_irq_enable())
> just raised a flag, and I didn't immediately see why the interrupt enable had
> been commented out.
Yes, it has been commented out in a very non-intuitive way.
> With a bit of further thought on the matter I am satisfied that this patch will
> not impact on driver function at all, and do not wish to sustain my objection.
>
> IOW: Ack, and my sincere apologies for wasting your time.
Thanks, I have added
Acked-by: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@...phys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
to the patch changelog in my tree.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
--
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