[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=YeqxF_eu2Q=cy6oAFfyTrzAH6VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:48:02 +0800
From: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, ben-linux@...ff.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: append hardware lock with bus lock
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that the hardware lock wouldn't mind being taken
>> twice by the AP side? If it is the case, then indeed the software mutex
>> is still needed to prevent it from happening.
>>
>> That being said... I guess that avoiding a priority inversion is a good
>> enough reason to always take the rt_mutex, regardless of the hardware
>> lock implementation.
>>
>> So, this patch is
>>
>> Acked-by: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
>>
>> I guess it makes more sense for me to let Ben apply it, as the other
>> two patches in the series are for him too. This will avoid a dependency
>> between our trees.
>
> Only change I'd suggest is passing adapter to the hardware_lock/unlock
> methods. Having no arguments what so ever in generic code for this kind
> of stuff looks rather strange and limiting.
>
OK. I'll update it.
--
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