[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46416B9A.3020008@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 16:35:06 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] MMC updates
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>>@@ -501,9 +501,9 @@ void mmc_detect_change(struct mmc_host *host,
>>>unsigned long delay)
>>> {
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MMC_DEBUG
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>- spin_lock_irqsave(host->lock, flags);
>>>+ spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
>>> BUG_ON(host->removed);
>>>- spin_unlock_irqrestore(host->lock, flags);
>>>+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
>>> #endif
>>
>>Do you actually need the lock there at all? What is it protecting?
>>
>
>
> It makes sure we don't have any race when it comes to modifying
> host->removed.
If you want to ensure you always only modify host->removed from under
the spinlock, it would be enforcable by introducing an accessor function
and doing a BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked()) in there.
If you just want to ensure that host->removed is 0 at this point, you
shouldn't need any spinlocks AFAIKS... that way you can probably afford
to move it out from CONFIG_MMC_DEBUG and get wider testing.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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