Patrick Boettcher wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Borgi2008 wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch, den 04.04.2007, 23:29 +0300 schrieb Antti Seppälä: >>> Borgi2008 wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> i've created a bugfixes. Hope it could helps you. >>>> >>>> Hendrik Borghorst >>>> >>>> >>> Actually, looking at the code I cannot figure out why there has to be a >>> spinlock in the first place. >>> >>> The lock is only taken in the interrupt handler which already runs in >>> atomic context so there is no use in making the handler protected by a >>> spinlock. Am I missing something here? >>> >>> I think the spinlock is unnecessary and should be removed entirely. > > Even on SMP systems? ISRs are only atomic on one CPU. Redhat has a bugzilla ticket open about this issue. Patrick, please take a look at the patch in bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234900 Regards, Michael Krufky _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
