| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:56:17 +0800 From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Bryan Freed <bfreed@...omium.org>, spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net, grant.likely@...retlab.ca, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: Unlock a spinlock before calling into the controller driver. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote: > Specifically there should be only one instance of spi_pump_messages() > running at a time per master. That's because it's a kthread work > function. ...so we can't possibly get a prepare in the middle of the > unprepare when prepare is called because the only caller to > prepare/unprepare is spi_pump_messages(). Yes that's how the message pump is designed. > I can't comment on whether it's better to do something like add a > workqueue (which might be more obvious / less fragile) or just to add > a comment. I will let others comment on that. :) The message pump initially used a workqueue, but was converted to a kthread because we needed to push the queue to run as realtime for some important low-latency workloads across SPI. The code is basically a tweaked workqueue if you dive down in the implementation. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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