From d9c6d69145ec696128961204f755a3b01edc2ff6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andi Kleen Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:10:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] x86_64: Don't use softirq safe locks in smp_call_function It is not fully softirq safe anyways. Can't do a WARN_ON unfortunately because it could trigger in the panic case. Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c index 0694940b2e73..df4a82812adb 100644 --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c @@ -386,9 +386,9 @@ int smp_call_function_single (int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info, return 0; } - spin_lock_bh(&call_lock); + spin_lock(&call_lock); __smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, info, nonatomic, wait); - spin_unlock_bh(&call_lock); + spin_unlock(&call_lock); put_cpu(); return 0; } -- 2.39.5