On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 04:46:34PM +0900, Hisashi Hifumi wrote: > Hi > > >If the function can be called with interrupts disabled as well as > >enabled, then the spin_lock_irq needs to become a spin_lock_irqsave() > >which is the correct API for this case. > > I know that spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore() is correct . > But in this case, many places need to be modified to use > spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore().Because > spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore() is not in the same function, > and it is needed to pass eflags. > > So I use in_irq() to distinguish between IRQ and process context and > minimize modifications. Why do we need to re-enable interrupts here? Can't we just spin_unlock() / spin_lock()? Actually, I don't see why we need to drop the lock here ... starget_for_each_device can be called under a spinlock. qla2x00_adjust_sdev_qdepth_up() only calls scsi_adjust_queue_depth(). Is there an AB-BA issue with hardware_lock and request_queue->queue_lock? - To unsubscribe from this list: 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
