[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100209191427.GA18263@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:14:27 +0300
From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] of/gpio: Introduce of_put_gpio(), add ref counting
for OF GPIO chips
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:28:15AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> Rather than having a lock at the device tree data pointer level which
> mixes usage with potentially many other drivers; wouldn't it make more
> sense to use a mutex at the of_gc subsystem context?
I don't think so.
of_gc = np->data;
lock(of_gc); (or lock(devtree))
<do something with of_gc>
doesn't provide us what we need, i.e. it doesn't guarantee that
np->data (of_gc) is still alive.
And here:
lock(np->data); (or lock(devtree))
of_gc = np->data;
lock(of_gc);
<do something with of_gc>
The second lock becomes useless (unless you also refcount np->data
usage and can drop the devtree/np->data lock, and grab some other
kind of lock, e.g. mutex, but this is silly).
Thanks,
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
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