[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19F8576C6E063C45BE387C64729E7394044F12543F@dbde02.ent.ti.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:04:19 +0530
From: "Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@...com>
To: "felipe.balbi@...ia.com" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"byron.bbradley@...il.com" <byron.bbradley@...il.com>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH-V2 1/3] RTC:s35390a: Add Alarm interrupt support
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felipe Balbi [mailto:felipe.balbi@...ia.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:00 PM
> To: Hiremath, Vaibhav
> Cc: Balbi Felipe (Nokia-MS/Helsinki); linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> akpm@...ux-foundation.org; byron.bbradley@...il.com; linux-
> omap@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH-V2 1/3] RTC:s35390a: Add Alarm interrupt support
>
> Hi,
>
> please break your lines at 80-characters.
Normally I do take care of this, but missed this time. I will be more careful in the future.
> Also the [Hiremath, Vaibhav]
> is unnecessary.
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:58:42AM +0200, ext Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
> >> don't you need some locking on the irq handler ? a mutex maybe ? Just
> >> wondering...
> >>
> >[Hiremath, Vaibhav] Yes definitely we do need locking here, I thought
> >of adding locking mechanism in subsequent patch, does it makes sense?
>
> so you add a buggy patch and fix it later ? If you already know it's
> buggy, why not changing the patch that adds the bug ?
>
[Hiremath, Vaibhav] Nothing to argue here, I have to admit/accept and fix this.
Thanks,
Vaibhav
> --
> balbi
>
> DefectiveByDesign.org
--
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