On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Sunday, March 6, 2005 2:36 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Any comments would be, as always, appreciated. > > I don't have a problem with this change, but the maintainer probably should > have been Cc'd. Greg, does this change look ok to you? Note that it's > already been committed to the upstream tree, so if it's a bad change we'll > need to have the cset excluded or something.
I think it's safe enough. Since interrupts are off at this point, I don't think the order of the two functions actually matters (i.e. we couldn't have received a signal until the call to spin_unlock_irqrestore() anyway). Thanks - Greg - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
