On 06/29, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > --- a/kernel/task_work.c > +++ b/kernel/task_work.c > @@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ void task_work_run(void) > * the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) should > * fail, but it can play with *work and other entries. > */ > - raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock); > + raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock); > + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock); Well, bit the you need spin_lock_irq(). And this is one of the reasons why I personally think unlock_wait have some sense... Oleg.
