[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070709131924.GM11451@enneenne.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:19:24 +0200
From: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS (with new syscalls API) - new version
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:09:50AM -0400, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Looks relatively sane at first glance; busy this week so haven't looked
> very hard yet. Two thing though... you're mixing proper C types
> (uint32_t) and the Linux-specific legacy crap types (__u32). Pick one. I
> won't recommend _which_ one, because if I do I'll make Andrew unhappy.
> But pick one; don't use both at the same time.
Ok. I choose __u32. :)
> Also read Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt and ponder
> deeply your use of 'volatile' on certain members of struct pps_s.
I read such document but I'm still convinced that the attribute
volatile is needed for {assert,clear}_sequence and {assert,clear}_tu
since inside pps_event() they are updated without any locks at all
thanks to the dummy_info variable which is used for unallocated PPS
sources.
Here you can find my last patch.
Thanks again,
Rodolfo
--
GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giometti@...eenne.com
Linux Device Driver giometti@...dd.com
Embedded Systems giometti@...ux.it
UNIX programming phone: +39 349 2432127
View attachment "patch" of type "text/plain" (13981 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists