Re: ncr53c9x fallout from asserting kernel lock in scsipi_base

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:17:42PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > assuming ncr53c9x is MP-safe, it is correct.
> 
> Just out of curiosity: assuming it isn't, what would be different?

if ncr53c9x is not MP-safe, it should be running under the KERNEL_LOCK
itself, and so should not need to take it before calling back in
scsipi.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--