Sorry. I have no test case to show some issue.
But from Linux Kernel Development Second Edition by Robert Love.
Use spin_lock_irq is dangerous since spin_unlock_irq unconditionally
enables interrupts.
We can assume the following scenario:
--->the interrupt is disabled.
spin_lock_irq(lock_ptr); <---this will disable interrupt again
list_del(&ic->ib_node);
spin_unlock_irq(lock_ptr); <---this will enable interrupt
---->the interrupt is enabled.
our code change the state of interrupt. This will make potential risk.
But spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore will not make potential risk.
Zhu Yanjun
On 2017/3/10 0:50, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On 3/8/2017 11:26 PM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
It is difficult to make sure the state of the interrupt when this
function is called. As such, it is safer to use spin_lock_irqsave
than spin_lock_irq.
There is no reason to hold irqs and as such the code path is
safe from irq context. I don't see need of this change unless
you have test case which showed some issue.
Regards,
Santosh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
