I'm currently running my own patched version, which uses
spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq instead of
spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore like you patch uses. Looking at
spinlock.h, spin_lock_irq does a local irq disable, which seems to be closer to
the original intent (disable_irq) than spin_lock_irqsave. Anyone want to
comment on this?
Anyway, still running under load, also got USB (which uses the same irq) to
produce some interrupts by scanning some stuff. No problems so far...
Cheers//Frank
-- WWWWW _______________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / \ ##---# _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ #### \ +31-320-252965 / \ frank@unternet.org / ------------------------- [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/