[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 12:23:57 +0300
From: "Shem Multinymous" <multinymous@...il.com>
To: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@...e.cz>
Cc: "Robert Love" <rlove@...ve.org>,
"Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hdaps-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] thinkpad_ec: New driver for ThinkPad embedded controller access
On 8/8/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> wrote:
> Okay... but do we really need try_lock variant?
We need a nonlocking, nonsleeping variant to do the query in the timer
function (softirq context).
> but what is try_lock semantics when taking multiple locks...?
Currently, the same as the undelying down_trylock().
> > >> + if (!check_dmi_for_ec()) {
> > >> + printk(KERN_ERR "thinkpad_ec: no ThinkPad embedded
> > >controller!\n");
> > >> + return -ENODEV;
> > >
> > >KERN_ERR is little strong here, no?
> >
> > Not sure what's the right one. The user tried to load a module and the
> > module can't do that; I saw some drivers use KERN_ERR some
> > KERN_WARNING in similar cases. Is there some guideline on choosing
> > printk levels?
>
> Well, this will also trigger for thinkpad module compiled into kernel,
> right?
OK, I'm changing the DMI failure to KERN_WARNING. Subsequent hardware
checks remains KERN_ERR, since failing those after passing the DMI
check really is abnormal (and indicative of danger).
Shem
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists