[PATCH] um: fix confusion irq early reenabling

Fix confusion about call context - comments and code are inconsistent and
plain wrong, my fault.

Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
Acked-by: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

authored by

Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso and committed by
Linus Torvalds
ec0ac8ad b5337885

+3 -3
+3 -3
arch/um/drivers/line.c
··· 370 struct tty_struct *tty = line->tty; 371 int err; 372 373 - /* Interrupts are enabled here because we registered the interrupt with 374 * IRQF_DISABLED (see line_setup_irq).*/ 375 376 - spin_lock_irq(&line->lock); 377 err = flush_buffer(line); 378 if (err == 0) { 379 return IRQ_NONE; ··· 381 line->head = line->buffer; 382 line->tail = line->buffer; 383 } 384 - spin_unlock_irq(&line->lock); 385 386 if(tty == NULL) 387 return IRQ_NONE;
··· 370 struct tty_struct *tty = line->tty; 371 int err; 372 373 + /* Interrupts are disabled here because we registered the interrupt with 374 * IRQF_DISABLED (see line_setup_irq).*/ 375 376 + spin_lock(&line->lock); 377 err = flush_buffer(line); 378 if (err == 0) { 379 return IRQ_NONE; ··· 381 line->head = line->buffer; 382 line->tail = line->buffer; 383 } 384 + spin_unlock(&line->lock); 385 386 if(tty == NULL) 387 return IRQ_NONE;