linux-kernel - Re: Locking in the clk API

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201101170927.44239.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:27:43 +0800
From:	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API

Hi all,

Based on the discussion from this thread, my plan is to:

* Change the 'common struct clk' patches to only use a spinlock for locking. 
This means that clk_{en,dis}able will acquire a per-clk spinlock (for enable 
counts), and be callable from atomic contexts.

* Rework the initial docs (posted in the first mail of this thread) to 
illustrate the new locking requirements.

* Request input from the platforms that require clk_enable (etc) to sleep, 
about how we can merge the two implementations.

Russell - is this OK?

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/