[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100312182209.GB8736@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:22:09 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: florian@...kler.org
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] enhance sysfs rfkill interface
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 07:03:08PM +0100, florian@...kler.org wrote:
>
> +static ssize_t rfkill_hard_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + struct rfkill *rfkill = to_rfkill(dev);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 state;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&rfkill->lock, flags);
> + state = rfkill->state;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rfkill->lock, flags);
Why exactly is this lock needed?
> +
> + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", (state & RFKILL_BLOCK_HW) ? 1 : 0 );
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t rfkill_soft_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + struct rfkill *rfkill = to_rfkill(dev);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 state;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&rfkill->lock, flags);
> + state = rfkill->state;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rfkill->lock, flags);
And here as well...
--
Dmitry
--
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