On 2012-11-20 11:05 AM, Felix Liao wrote: >> Hi Felix F, I'm Felix Liao from WatchGuard, I think we should >> spin_lock_irqsave and spin_unlock_irqrestore on sc_pcu_lock in the >> ath9k_tasklet() instead of spin_lock/spin_unlock, just to avoid the tasklet >> being interrupted by the hardware IRQ, do you think so? >Using an IRQ spinlock in the tasklet is not the correct solution. If the IRQ >fires while the tasklet is running, it means that the driver does not properly >disable IRQs in the handler. They're supposed to get disabled there and >re-enabled only after the tasklet has completed.
My 2 cents. I disagree this statement "They're supposed to get disabled there and re-enabled only after the tasklet has completed." In general, IRQs should be able to interrupt tasklet. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of using tasklet. Only when both tasklet and IRQs can access common resources(critical region), IRQ needs to be disabled before tasklet access this resource and re-enable after that. _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
