From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT 1/5] Input: implement proper locking in input core Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:52:45 -0400 Message-ID: <200707240152.47006.dtor@insightbb.com> References: <20070724044520.913891976.dtor@insightbb.com> <20070724044858.192608314.dtor@insightbb.com> <46A58FBA.5010505@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46A58FBA.5010505@garzik.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Hi Jeff, On Tuesday 24 July 2007 01:35, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > spin_lock_irq() should generally be avoided. > > In cases like the first case -- input_repeat_key() -- you are making > incorrect assumptions about the state of interrupts. The other cases > are probably ok, but in general spin_lock_irq() has a long history of > being very fragile and quite often wrong. > > Use spin_lock_irqsave() to be safe. Definitely in input_repeat_key(), > but I strongly recommend removing spin_lock_irq() from all your patches > here. > Thasnk you for looking at the patches. Actually I went back and forth between spin_lock_irq and spin_lock_irqsave.. I will change back to irqsave version, it is indeed safer. -- Dmitry