On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 18:33 +0200, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > Thanks for the detailed answer !!
You're welcome. > > BTW you went 5 steps ahead of my original question :)), so far you > already have a patch without locking at all (really impressive). > > What i wanted to ask originally, was regarding the "_bh", i didn't > mean to completely remove the "spin_lock_bh", > I meant, what happens if we replace "spin_lock_bh" with "spin_lock", > without disabling bh ? > I gues raw "sping_lock" handles points (2 to 4) from above, but it > won't handle long irqs. Thats a very good point, the _bh prefix can totally be removed, since stats_lock is only acquired from process context.
