[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181218233354.pie5i3lvrrhq5q2c@ninjato>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:33:54 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT 01/10] i2c: add 'is_suspended' flag for i2c adapters
> > + unsigned int is_suspended:1; /* owned by the I2C core */
>
> When more stuff is added to this bit field (which always happens at
> some point) updates to all members of the bit field will have to use
> the same root-adapter-locking, or we will suffer from RMW-races. So
> this feels like an invitation for future disaster. Maybe a comment
> about that to remind our future selves? Or perhaps the bit field
> should be avoided altogether?
Changed to bool. Thanks!
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists