Hi Jiri,
trying for a somewhat more coherent opinion:
If you look at the code long enough, you will notioce that the
local_irq_disable() call is actually commented out. This has been
introduced back in 2002 in [1], but as you can see, the same bug has been
there even before, with the sti() call being commented out in the very
same way :)
The substitution of sti() by local_irq_disable() had me a bit confused here. The
last time I worked on this driver was when we still had a big kernel lock, so
the sti() might have been crucial there.
The code does evidently work fine without it, and redo_fd_request as well as
do_fd_action do not need to reenable local interupts or otherwise change the
interrupt level anymore. After a bit more pondering over the code I now
understand why this is ...
The surounding code probably hasn't been touched in ages. The floppy driver in
its current state does work. If redo_fd_request could alter timers ot queues,
rmoving the locking would be dangerous, no?
The patch is not removing any locking. It only
1) removes the local_irq_disable() that has been commented out for many
years already anyway
2) removes the saving and restoring of CPU flags around do_fd_request(),
which is rather clearly a nop than any kind of "locking"
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/12/27/58
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx>
NAck for my part.
Please elaborate a little bit more which of the two points above you base
your NACK on.
The removal of local_irq_disable() (which should have been local_irq_enable())
just raised a flag, and I didn't immediately see why the interrupt enable had
been commented out.
With a bit of further thought on the matter I am satisfied that this patch will
not impact on driver function at all, and do not wish to sustain my objection.
IOW: Ack, and my sincere apologies for wasting your time.
Michael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html