[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711142223.46061.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:23:45 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...ecomint.eu>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.24-rc2 1/3] generic gpio -- gpio_chip support
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > But these ones
> > > are raw locks rather than normal locks probably because that
> > > they are trivially an innermost and correct lock.
> >
> > As in the $SUBJECT case, I'd say.
> >
> > Although another point is related to "trivial": the data
> > is being protected through an operation too trivial to be
> > worth paying for any of that priority logic.
>
> A driver shouldn't get to decide that, IMO.
Not that I was talking about driver code...
> And if there is
> some policy in the -rt tree allowing these decisions, then
> it's exactly the kind of thing we don't want upsream.
Making raw spinlocks available allows those decisions...
On the other hand, I can't see things working sanely
without them being available. The problem seems to be
the usual one that crops up whenever anyone tries to
create a "bright line" decision algorithm in areas that
need flexibility. Any "bright line" rule will lead to
wrong results.
- Dave
-
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