[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB0F7DA.6080603@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:56:26 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
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
On 03/29/2010 11:39 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> 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
Sorry, I missed the "continue", which of course handles the situation I
was worried about. The shared wait queue is a bit inelegant, but if it
turns out to be a bottleneck in real life then we either have bigger
problems or it can be addressed at that time.
-hpa
--
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