| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:37:24 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> Cc: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>, Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, ben-linux@...ff.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: append hardware lock with bus lock On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Are you suggesting that the hardware lock wouldn't mind being taken > twice by the AP side? If it is the case, then indeed the software mutex > is still needed to prevent it from happening. > > That being said... I guess that avoiding a priority inversion is a good > enough reason to always take the rt_mutex, regardless of the hardware > lock implementation. > > So, this patch is > > Acked-by: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> > > I guess it makes more sense for me to let Ben apply it, as the other > two patches in the series are for him too. This will avoid a dependency > between our trees. Only change I'd suggest is passing adapter to the hardware_lock/unlock methods. Having no arguments what so ever in generic code for this kind of stuff looks rather strange and limiting. -- 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