[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <F77F7ABE-3A11-4DF5-942A-2B4FED0AD99E@collabora.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 18:03:54 -0300
From: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq()
>> Didn't your commit message mention SpinLockIrq?
>
> This is not upstream yet. I removed all mentions of SpinLockIrq on
> purpose, but I apparently missed some as you say.
>
> We definitely need interrupt-aware spinlocks to access the data in interrupt
> context. It is just a matter of deciding whether we will be referring to a type
> whose API is not 100% formalized as we speak, or to SpinLock itself - which is
> already upstream - with a caveat. I chose the latter.
>
Minor correction => to access the data in process context.
— Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists