> The above code snippet removes the nested unlock-irq, but now the code
> is unbalanced, so IMO this patch _adds_ confusion.
>
> I think the conservative patch for 2.6.17 is the one I have attached.
> Unless there are objections, that is what I will forward...
This looks reasonable and sufficiently conservative. Reworking locking is
something that I'm a bit more hesitant about, although folding misc_lock
in with the other locks perhaps makes sense. I would like to keep the
split between tx and tx completion, though. Also, any rework is going to
need real testing, which is not something that a simple release cycle is
likely to get enough coverage on.
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
