linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Change comment in include linux/clk.h

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081005215555.484445d4@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com>
Date:	Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:55:55 +0200
From:	Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alex Raimondi <raimondi@...omico.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change comment in include linux/clk.h

Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > I see several ARM implementation using mutexes for locking in these
> > functions. So I assume we never want to call them from interrupt
> > context, right?  
> 
> Correct.  I'm not sure why anyone would even consider doing so.

I can't think of any reason to do so either, but having the comment
there makes me feel safer about having calls that might sleep or
irq-unsafe spinlocks in the implementation.

Haavard
--
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/