![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi! > >Okay... but do we really need try_lock variant? > > We need a nonlocking, nonsleeping variant to do the query in the timer > function (softirq context). > > >but what is try_lock semantics when taking multiple locks...? > > Currently, the same as the undelying down_trylock(). Okay, I guess this works for me. > >Well, this will also trigger for thinkpad module compiled into kernel, > >right? > > OK, I'm changing the DMI failure to KERN_WARNING. Subsequent hardware > checks remains KERN_ERR, since failing those after passing the DMI > check really is abnormal (and indicative of danger). Yep, that sounds correct. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-08-08 11:43 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||