On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 16:30 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > The ha->hardware_lock is obtained without spin_lock_irq(), so that's > correct. Yes, that was my confusion But ... I wish you hadn't pointed it out. Now I look at the driver, the ha->hardware_lock is taken at interrupt level (in the interrupt routines). However, this sequence of code: spin_unlock_irq(ha->host->host_lock); spin_lock(&ha->hardware_lock); Enables interrupts then takes this lock. If we ever get a qla interrupt before we drop the ha->hardware_lock again, that will be a classic deadlock. James - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
