Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> You never answered my second question. Is this sort of thing
> acceptable?
Doh! I never noticed your second question. Sorry about that.
>
> DECLARE_SPINLOCK(lock);
>
> static void irq_handler()
>
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately that would not work in the RT case either. Because in RT,
>> that spin_lock can schedule, and we are not allowed to schedule with
>> interrupts disabled.
>
> So how do you han
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
>> So looks like we don't have (yet) a way to make it work nicely in both
>> cases... does anyone has a clue about how to implement this one??
>
> You of course still can
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> spin_lock(&some_lock
Alan Cox wrote:
>> The reason for doing this is historical; usb_hcd_giveback_urb() is
>> documented as running with local IRQs disabled, and many drivers depend
>> on that. For example, their callback routines invoked by
>> usb_hcd_giveback_urb do spin_lock() instead of spin_lock_irqsave().
>
>
