[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100329193933.1a04762b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:39:33 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Giel van Schijndel <me@...tis.eu>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Laurens Leemans <laurens@...nips.com>,
lm-sensors@...sensors.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] resource: shared I/O region support
> What I *really* object to with this patch is that it inherently assumes
> that there is only one multiplexed resource in the entire system... but
> of course nowhere enforces that.
The patch does nothing of the sort. Not unless there is a bug I am not
seeing anyway. It does assume nobody tries to grab pairs of such
resources as it doesn't do deadlock avoidance.
It's now a shared resource patch however, its a multiplexor patch and
that is precisely why it is called MUX not SHARED or OVERLAY
Alan
--
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