[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002250511.52284.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:11:52 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: "Rick L. Vinyard, Jr." <rvinyard@...nmsu.edu>
Cc: Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>,
"Jiri Kosina" <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Nicu Pavel" <npavel@...ner.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] picolcd: driver for PicoLCD HID device
Am Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 22:44:53 schrieb Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.:
> The issue, as I understand it is that non-interrupt code may obtain the
> lock and then the interrupt code is executed... hence the deadlock and the
> need to use spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore().
Yes.
> If that is correct, is there any problem with the following approach?
Why not always a workqueue or alternatively spin_lock_irq() when
you are not in interrupt? This approach seems needlessly complicated.
Secondly, when you hold a spinlock, you must use GFP_ATOMIC.
GFP_NOIO is insufficient.
Regards
Oliver
--
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