[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANKRQnhZErpvcsRW3ukNzY0_zv4x=5OzQ-sr+aeuxL63=tQ=4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:30:25 +0900
From: Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya.rohm@...il.com>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tec-electronic.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> @@ -1376,7 +1379,8 @@ static void pch_uart_set_termios(struct uart_port *port,
>
> baud = uart_get_baud_rate(port, termios, old, 0, port->uartclk / 16);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags);
> + spin_lock(&port->lock);
>
> uart_update_timeout(port, termios->c_cflag, baud);
> rtn = pch_uart_hal_set_line(priv, baud, parity, bits, stb);
> @@ -1389,7 +1393,8 @@ static void pch_uart_set_termios(struct uart_port *port,
> tty_termios_encode_baud_rate(termios, baud, baud);
>
> out:
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
> + spin_unlock(&port->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
> }
Are both port->lock and priv->lock really necessary ?
> @@ -1572,7 +1578,9 @@ pch_console_write(struct console *co, const char *s, unsigned int count)
>
> if (locked)
> spin_unlock(&priv->port.lock);
> + spin_unlock(&priv->lock);
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> }
Looks spare blank line.
thanks.
--
ROHM Co., Ltd.
tomoya
--
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