[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100313133315.16e42e7e@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:33:15 +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,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] enhance sysfs rfkill interface
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:55:54 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> Well, right now it is mutex so it will not protect if something happens
> in interrupt context. Takeing the global rfkill mutex seems pretty heavy
> but there does not seem to be a per-device mutex. There also some
> muching with spinlock inside rfkill_set_state but it is dropped when we
> actually carry out the operation. I am afraid the locking in rfkill
> needs some reviewing...
>
I _think_ this is ok...
as far as i can see everything which writes to rfkill->state in
net/rfkill/core.c takes the rfkill->lock spinlock... the mutex
probably protects other global rfkill data... as long as drivers only
use the rfkill.h interface and not acess the rfkill->state
themselves this should be ok...
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