[linux-dvb] [BUG] flexcop lockdep

Michael Krufky mkrufky at linuxtv.org
Thu Apr 5 18:47:21 CEST 2007


Michael Krufky wrote:
> 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

Actually, the bugzilla patch is also from Hendrik Borghorst ...

Sorry about that... Nothing in the bugzilla report that hasnt already been
said in this thread.

-- 
Michael Krufky




More information about the linux-dvb mailing list