On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:22:06PM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > Actually sorry, Mike Christie did already make a clarification on this > subject here: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=129010439421506&w=2 > > I had originally thought the same that session->lock should be using > some flavour of spin_lock_irq*() as well, but apparently this is not the > case for libiscsi. Right, so it seems. "the session lock is just locked in softirqs/timers" means that it does need to be the _bh() version of spin_lock though. I'm actually not sure ... is it safe to use the _bh versions in BH context? I think it is because the preempt count is nested, unlike the _irq variants of spinlocks. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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
