[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WMMNA5xbwSrJebsLuw78sR1gtC0Yn+4FsA9HnvaNtk_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:09:28 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
Cc: James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
Grant Grundler <grundler@...omium.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Abhilash Kesavan <a.kesavan@...sung.com>,
Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
Bing Zhao <bzhao@...vell.com>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: dw_mmc: Protect read-modify-write of INTMASK
with a lock
Jaehoon / James
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com> wrote:
>> In this case it'd only be a space and code complexity thing I think. I
>> suppose in some cases the benefit of finer-grained locking is probably
>> pretty marginal, but there's a good case for it here. It might be
>> worth renaming the lock to irq_lock or something like that so it's
>> clear it doesn't have to protect only for INTMASK in the future - up
>> to you.
> It seems good that use the irq_lock than intmask_lock. (It's just naming)
Done in v2.
--
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