From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: eata irq abuse (was: Re: Linux 2.5.60) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:25:41 +0000 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030212142541.A8262@infradead.org> References: <70652A801D9E0C469C28A0F8BCF49CF9012EBA97@itmi1mx2.corp.emc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <70652A801D9E0C469C28A0F8BCF49CF9012EBA97@itmi1mx2.corp.emc.com>; from Ballabio_Dario@emc.com on Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 09:13:10AM -0500 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Ballabio_Dario@emc.com Cc: hch@infradead.org, manfred@colorfullife.com, warp@mercury.d2dc.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 09:13:10AM -0500, Ballabio_Dario@emc.com wrote: > Last time I tried to run the detect routine with interrupts enabled, > it just hung at the first occurrence on an inb() from > the board registers. If someone is able to have it > working with interrupts enabled and qualifies the > solution on all the platforms and eata boards, > I'd be more than happy to remove it. Ah, you don't need the lock but the disabled interrupts! What about adding local_irq_disable(); ... local_irq_enable(); around the sections that need interreupts disabled? The spinlock is really confusing.