[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120618222104.GA9543@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:21:04 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya.rohm@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tec-electronic.com>,
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 Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:41:46PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 06/05/2012 04:48 PM, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> Are there still concerns about the additional lock? I'll resend V2
> >> tomorrow with the single whitespace fix if I don't hear anything back today.
> >
> > I understand your saying. Looks good.
> > However, I am not expert of linux-uart core system.
> > So, I'd like UART maintainer to give us your opinion.
>
> Greg, Alan,
>
> any concerns with the locking approach I've adopted in the patch?
Care to resend the patch, as it was a RFC one, it's no longer in my
queue.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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