linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201006111718.47426.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:18:44 +0800
From:	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To:	Lothar Waßmann <LW@...o-electronics.de>
Cc:	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Ben Herrenchmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

Hi Lothar,

> Using a mutex in clk_enable()/clk_disable() is a bad idea, since that
> makes it impossible to call those functions in interrupt context.

Do we do this at the moment? I know at least one implementation of clk_enable 
uses a mutex for locking.

Cheers,


Jeremy
--
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/