Am Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 22:44:53 schrieb Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.: > The issue, as I understand it is that non-interrupt code may obtain the > lock and then the interrupt code is executed... hence the deadlock and the > need to use spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore(). Yes. > If that is correct, is there any problem with the following approach? Why not always a workqueue or alternatively spin_lock_irq() when you are not in interrupt? This approach seems needlessly complicated. Secondly, when you hold a spinlock, you must use GFP_ATOMIC. GFP_NOIO is insufficient. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
