Michael Krufky wrote: > 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 Actually, the bugzilla patch is also from Hendrik Borghorst ... Sorry about that... Nothing in the bugzilla report that hasnt already been said in this thread. -- Michael Krufky _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
