From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] lock validator: fix ns83820.c irq-flags bug Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:28:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20060611202856.GA9868@kvack.org> References: <200606090519.k595JmDG032032@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <448C4C7A.7020301@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, arjan@linux.intel.com Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([66.96.29.28]:33501 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750963AbWFKU3I (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:29:08 -0400 To: Jeff Garzik Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <448C4C7A.7020301@garzik.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > The above code snippet removes the nested unlock-irq, but now the code > is unbalanced, so IMO this patch _adds_ confusion. > > I think the conservative patch for 2.6.17 is the one I have attached. > Unless there are objections, that is what I will forward... This looks reasonable and sufficiently conservative. Reworking locking is something that I'm a bit more hesitant about, although folding misc_lock in with the other locks perhaps makes sense. I would like to keep the split between tx and tx completion, though. Also, any rework is going to need real testing, which is not something that a simple release cycle is likely to get enough coverage on. -ben -- "Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important." Don't Email: .