[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FFA9419.1050208@nod.at>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:19:37 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
CC: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, Heinz.Egger@...utronix.de,
thomas.wucher@...utronix.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
tim.bird@...sony.com, Marius.Mazarel@...l.ro,
artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com, nyoushchenko@...sta.com
Subject: Re: UBI fastmap updates
Am 09.07.2012 09:37, schrieb Shmulik Ladkani:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:07:41 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>>> + /* TODO: in the new locking scheme, produce_free_peb is
>>> + * called under wl_lock taken.
>>> + * so when returning, should reacquire the lock
>>> + */
>>
>> Which new locking scheme?
>
> I am diffing linux-ubi fastmap HEAD against its fork point (vanilla
> ubi), that's 6b16351..d41a140 on linux-ubi.
>
> Which gives the following diff in produce_free_pebs:
Ahh. _my_ new locking scheme. I feared someone else changed it meanwhile in mainline. ;)
Yes, the &ubi->wl_lock in produce_free_peb() is no longer needed.
Again, thanks for pointing this out!
Thanks,
//richard
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists