Hi Stanislaw,
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:45:21AM +0100, Helmut Schaa wrote:
>> > - if (!rt2x00queue_threshold(entry->queue))
>> > + if (!rt2x00queue_threshold(entry->queue)) {
>> > + spin_lock_irq(&entry->queue->tx_lock);
>> > rt2x00queue_unpause_queue(entry->queue);
>> > + spin_unlock_irq(&entry->queue->tx_lock);
>>
>> Why do we need to disable interrupts here? spin_lock_bh should
>> be sufficient.
>
> I'm not 100% sure, and I was to lazy to find out, and chose safer
> version. I guess I need to find out now ...
>
That is actually a good point of Helmut. In all other cases where the tx_lock
is used we actually use spin_lock and spin_unlock. AFAIK we shouldn't mix
the different spinlock variants, so with this the other uses may have to change
as well.
---
Gertjan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
