On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 14:38 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:15:33 +0100 > > > vortex_ioctl() was grabbing vortex_private::lock around its call to > > generic_mii_ioctl(). This is no longer necessary since there are more > > specific locks which the mdio_{read,write}() functions will obtain. > > Worse, those functions do not save and restore IRQ flags when locking > > the MII state, so interrupts will be enabled when generic_mii_ioctl() > > returns. > > > > Since there is currently no need for any function to call > > mdio_{read,write}() while holding another spinlock, do not change them > > to save and restore IRQ flags but remove the specification of ordering > > between vortex_private::lock and vortex_private::mii_lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings > > --- > > I've now borrowed a card to test 3c59x on. I've seen another regression > > reported after my locking changes, which > > I can't reproduce. > > I think the lock is necessary, in some form. > > Nothing otherwise protects vp->mii, which is accessed and modified by > not just this ioctl, but also ethtool operation calls. > > So we can't apply your patch as-is. Hmm, yes, I forgot that mii caches information in struct mii_if_info. Let me rethink this. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.