[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150610115929.GE28762@mwanda>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:59:29 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: "J. German Rivera" <German.Rivera@...escale.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stuart.yoder@...escale.com, bhupesh.sharma@...escale.com,
agraf@...e.de, bhamciu1@...escale.com, nir.erez@...escale.com,
itai.katz@...escale.com, scottwood@...escale.com,
R89243@...escale.com, richard.schmitt@...escale.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] staging: fsl-mc: Add locking to serialize
mc_send_command() calls
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:59:07PM -0500, J. German Rivera wrote:
> Add a locking mechanism to serialize mc_send_command() calls that use
> the same fsl_mc_io object (same MC portal). When the fsl_mc_io object is
> created the owner needs to know in which type of context the fsl_mc_io
> object is going to be used. A flag passed-in to fsl_create_mc_io()
> will indicate whether the fsl_mc_io object will be used in atomic or
> non-atomic context. If the fsl_mc_io object is going to be used in
> non-atomic context only, mc_send_command() calls with it will be
> serialized using a mutex. Otherwise, if the fsl_mc_io object is
> going to be used in atomic context, mc_semd_command() calls with it
> will be serialized using a spinlock.
>
> Signed-off-by: J. German Rivera <German.Rivera@...escale.com>
> Reviewed-by: Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@...escale.com>
My understanding is that no one actually sets
FSL_MC_IO_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_PORTAL?
It's hard to review patches 6 & 7 properly without users. Why don't you
just wait on those until we have a use for it.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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