Hi, probably taking two consecutive spin_lock_bh ? spin_lock_bh(a) spin_lock_bh(b) any thoughts, would be appreciated. thanks, shafi On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Mohammed Shafi <shafi.kernel@gmail.com>wrote:

Hi,

I see a warning,

/qsdk/qca/src/linux/kernel/softirq.c:159 local_bh_enable_ip+0x5c/0xe0()

spin_lock_bh. While dev_ioctl is called from user context, not sure why we have the warning because of the following reasons in softirq.c : 159

1. in_irqs - interrupt handler context (So we need to use spin_lock_irq_save ) 2. disabled_irqs - interrupts are disabled (spin_lock should be good enough ).

Can some one give me more thoughts, I can see that its not necessary to call spin_lock_bh from softirq context, what are the other scenarios where this might be a problem or not necessary ? The above warning comes from dev_ioctl (user context), when a new network interface is added.

thanks, shafi