linux-kernel - Re: [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: <201101110854.15653.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:54:15 +0800
From:	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To:	"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Ben Herrenchmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

Hi Russell,

> Unless the locking problems can be resolved, the patches aren't ready.
> 
> From what I've seen there's still quite a problem with what kind of
> lock to use in the clock - mutex or spinlock.

Yes, the clock driver may either use a spinlock or mutex.

However, this exactly the same as the current clock code, my patches do not 
alter what we currently have.

I do agree that we should define some specific semantics for the clock API 
with regards to sleeping, and I'll start a new thread about that. But we 
should definitely separate that issue from the problem of having multiple 
definitions for struct clk, which is what these patches address.

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/