From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Well, there is no such thing as a spin_trylock_irq() in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
---
25-akpm/drivers/net/smc91x.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN drivers/net/smc91x.c~smc91x-fix-smp-lock-usage drivers/net/smc91x.c
--- 25/drivers/net/smc91x.c~smc91x-fix-smp-lock-usage Thu Sep 30 17:46:48 2004
+++ 25-akpm/drivers/net/smc91x.c Thu Sep 30 17:46:48 2004
@@ -563,7 +563,15 @@ done:
* any other concurrent access and C would always interrupt B. But life
* isn't that easy in a SMP world...
*/
-#define smc_special_trylock(lock) spin_trylock_irq(lock)
+#define smc_special_trylock(lock) \
+({ \
+ int __ret; \
+ local_irq_disable(); \
+ __ret = spin_trylock(lock); \
+ if ((!__ret) \
+ local_irq_enable(); \
+ __ret; \
+})
#define smc_special_lock(lock) spin_lock_irq(lock)
#define smc_special_unlock(lock) spin_unlock_irq(lock)
#else
_