26.09.2013, 17:32, "Tejun Heo" <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Hello, Kirill. > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 05:21:19PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> ata_port_wait_eh() uses spin_lock_irqsave() and this can confuse in fact >> that it is suitable to use in irqs_disabled() context. But we can't. >> >> (schedule() returns with interrupts enabled so it's possible >> ata_port_wait_eh() enters with disabled interrupts but returns with enabled) >> >> So, replace irqsave to unconditional closing of interrupts. >> >> I propose to consider to add patch like this. (If you don't have a magic >> with flags which is not obvious for me :) > > Hmmm... yeah, this was Jeff's preference, at least way back, so libata > has a lot of spin_lock_irqsave()'s where spin_lock_irq() should do. > At this point, I don't really mind either way but if you wanna change > it can you please do a full sweep through libata? While I don't mind > either state too much, I do want them to be mostly consistent one way > or the other. I don't exclude this, maybe, I do this in my spare time ;) Kirill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
