lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks
    On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:41:46 -0700
    Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    > On 06/05/2012 04:48 PM, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
    > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
    > >> Are there still concerns about the additional lock? I'll resend V2
    > >> tomorrow with the single whitespace fix if I don't hear anything back today.
    > >
    > > I understand your saying. Looks good.
    > > However, I am not expert of linux-uart core system.
    > > So, I'd like UART maintainer to give us your opinion.
    >
    > Greg, Alan,
    >
    > any concerns with the locking approach I've adopted in the patch?

    Only the one I noted in my reply the first time around which is that you
    can't permit tty->low_latency=1 unless your tty receive path is not an
    IRQ path. From a locking point of view the change makes sense anyway.

    Going back over it your console locking also needs care - an oops or
    printk within the areas the private lock covers will hang the box. That
    should also probably be a trylock style lock as with the other lock on
    that path

    Alan


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-19 11:41    [W:2.454 / U:0.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site