Hi, probably taking two consecutive spin_lock_bh ? spin_lock_bh(a) spin_lock_bh(b)
any thoughts, would be appreciated. thanks, shafi On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Mohammed Shafi <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > I see a warning, > > /qsdk/qca/src/linux/kernel/softirq.c:159 local_bh_enable_ip+0x5c/0xe0() > > spin_lock_bh. While dev_ioctl is called from user context, not sure > why we have the warning because of the following reasons in softirq.c : > 159 > > 1. in_irqs - interrupt handler context (So we need to use > spin_lock_irq_save ) > 2. disabled_irqs - interrupts are disabled (spin_lock should be good > enough ). > > Can some one give me more thoughts, I can see that its not necessary to > call spin_lock_bh > from softirq context, what are the other scenarios where this might be a > problem or not > necessary ? The above warning comes from dev_ioctl (user context), when > a new > network interface is added. > > thanks, > shafi >
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
