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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:10:31 +0300
From:	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
To:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
CC:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	jonsmirl@...il.com, Simon <longsleep@...il.com>,
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 1/2] pwm: Add Allwinner SoC support

Hi Alexandre,

On 20.10.2014 13:29, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 20/10/2014 at 00:22:57 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote :
>>> +struct sun4i_pwm_chip {
>>> +	struct pwm_chip chip;
>>> +	struct clk *clk;
>>> +	void __iomem *base;
>>> +	struct mutex ctrl_lock;
>>
>> why do you use mutex? I haven't found any blocking subcalls under
>> protection, a spinlock seems to fit better here.
>>
> 
> A mutex here will do the right thing. The lock is never taken in
> interrupt context and a mutex is spinning for a few cycles before
> putting the thread to sleep.

and why do you want to put a thread to sleep in context of the driver?

> I'm not sure why you feel a spinlock would be better here.
> 

Only because a spinlock is lighter than a mutex.

With best wishes,
Vladimir
--
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