.}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95

   and this task is already holding:
    (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281
   which would create a new lock dependency:
    (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}

   but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock:
    (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}
   ... which became hard-irq-safe at:
     [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff

   to a hard-irq-unsafe lock:
    (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}
   ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at:
   ...  [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706
     [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71
     [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38
     [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b
     [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e
     [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5
     [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9
     [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176
     [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11
     [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff

Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of
spin_lock()

Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>