[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=ocsVseYj0Ee5rYqMgTDnd9jkvzCFJmaTUFrbiLH1_vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:41:14 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] PM / OPP: take RCU lock in dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count
On 18 December 2014 at 05:17, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Yep, they can be nested. Both rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
> are quite fast, as are their friends, so there is almost no performance
> penalty from nesting. So the decision normally turns on maintainability
> and style.
Thanks again for your kind advice :)
--
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