[linux-dvb] [BUG] flexcop lockdep

[Michael Krufky]

Patrick Boettcher wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Borgi2008 wrote:
> 
>> Am Mittwoch, den 04.04.2007, 23:29 +0300 schrieb Antti Seppälä:
>>> Borgi2008 wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> i've created a bugfixes. Hope it could helps you.
>>>>
>>>> Hendrik Borghorst
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually, looking at the code I cannot figure out why there has to be a
>>> spinlock in the first place.
>>>
>>> The lock is only taken in the interrupt handler which already runs in
>>> atomic context so there is no use in making the handler protected by a
>>> spinlock. Am I missing something here?
>>>
>>> I think the spinlock is unnecessary and should be removed entirely.
> 
> Even on SMP systems? ISRs are only atomic on one CPU.

Redhat has a bugzilla ticket open about this issue.

Patrick, please take a look at the patch in bugzilla:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234900

Regards,

Michael Krufky