[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100312215743.7671d173@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:57:43 +0100
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
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, 12 Mar 2010 10:22:09 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> 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?
The rfkill state is updated from multiple contexts... Am I overlooking
smth obvious here?
cheers,
Flo
--
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