Florian Westphal <f...@strlen.de> : > Francois Romieu <rom...@fr.zoreil.com> wrote: [...] > > Play it safe and keep the implicit local_irq_{save / restore} call ? > > > > It may not be needed but it will help avoiding any unexpected regression > > report pointing at the NETDEV_TX_LOCKED removal change. > > I thought about that but it doesn't prevent the irq handler from > running on another CPU, so leaving it around seemed like cargo culting > to me...
I don't mind removing it in a different patch at all. I'd rather see the commit history underline that it's unrelated to whatever NETDEV_TX_LOCKED / LLTX change. > I don't have an atl1c, but the atl1e in my laptop seems to work fine > with the (similar) change. > > If you disagree I can respin with local_irq_save of course, but, if > 'playing it safe' is main goal then its simpler to convert > spin_trylock_irqsave to spin_lock_irqsave. Your call, really. -- Ueimor