[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANDhNCpz2Gqd=xA_fT0jCTqjE9yU2TGvMotx36AhRQ9jFv77QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:20:37 -0700
From: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Christopher S Hall <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/25] timekeeping: Move timekeeper_lock into tk_core
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 1:29 AM Anna-Maria Behnsen
<anna-maria@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
>
> timekeeper_lock protects updates to struct tk_core but is not part of
> struct tk_core. As long as there is only a single timekeeper, this is not a
> problem. But when the timekeeper infrastructure will be reused for per ptp
> clock timekeepers, timekeeper_lock needs to be part of tk_core.
>
> Move the lock into tk_core, move initialisation of the lock and sequence
> counter into timekeeping_init() and update all users of timekeeper_lock.
>
> As this is touching all lock sites, convert them to use:
>
> guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&tk_core.lock);
>
> instead of lock/unlock functions whenever possible.
>
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Acked-by: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists