[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140102.190511.837169616985438729.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 19:05:11 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: samuel@...tiz.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IrDA woes..
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 14:47:44 -0800
> You could use spin_lock_bh(), but if it's true that it's all in a
> softirq context, I think it should be safe to just do "spin_lock()".
> Afaik, there is nothing that actually does anything in real hardirq
> context in there. I *think* all the network _rcv() functions are
> called from softirqs, right?
I'm worried that mixing hardIRQ locking (via the direct calls to
skb_dequeue() et al.) with explicit softIRQ locking will make lockdep
complain.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists