[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwDgG6tZeqX7QPwxvwK8MMn_+RSkOgfG_jxzKkzySV6vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:40:10 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Ah. Now that makes sense.
>
> Unpatched the ordering is:
>
> chip_bus_lock(desc);
> irq_request_resources(desc);
I *looked* at that ordering and then went "Naah, that makes no sense".
But if that's the only issue, how about we just re-order those things
- we still don't need to move the irq_request_resources() into the
spinlock, we just move it to below the chip_bus_lock().
IOW, something like the (COMPLETELY UNTEESTED!) attached patch.
This assumes that the chip_bus_lock() thing is still ok for the RT
case, but it looks like it might be: the only other one I looked at
(apart from the gpio-omap one) used a mutex.
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (1163 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists