[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150224004121.GN32521@atomide.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:41:21 -0800
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
tglx@...utronix.de, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/35] clockevents: Provide explicit broadcast oneshot
control function
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [150216 05:13]:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> clockevents_notify() is a leftover from the early design of the
> clockevents facility. It's really not a notification mechanism, it's a
> multiplex call. We are way better off to have explicit calls instead of this
> monstrosity.
>
> Split out the broadcast oneshot control into a separate function and
> provide inline helpers. Switch clockevents_notify() over. This will go
> away once all callers are converted.
>
> This also gets rid of the nested locking of clockevents_lock and
> broadcast_lock. The broadcast oneshot control functions do not require
> clockevents_lock. Only the managing functions
> (setup/shutdown/suspend/resume of the broadcast device require
> clockevents_lock.
Still works for me:
Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
--
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