On 06/29/2010 10:08 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Is it incorrect to have the following pattern? spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock); spin_unlock(q->queue_lock); spin_lock(q->queue_lock); spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock);
Perfectly legitimate. spin_lock_irqsave() is equivalent to local_irq_save() followed by spin_lock() (with the potential optimization that we can service interrupts while spinning).
-- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
