[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/4] drivers: hwspinlock: add framework
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Andrew Morton <> wrote:
> It's a little irritating having two hwspinlock.h's.
> hwspinlock_internal.h wold be a conventional approach.  But it's not a
> big deal.

>> +/**
>> + * __hwspin_lock_timeout() - lock an hwspinlock with timeout limit
>> + * @hwlock: the hwspinlock to be locked
>> + * @timeout: timeout value in jiffies
> hm, why in jiffies?
> The problem here is that lazy programmers will use
>        hwspin_lock_timeout(lock, 10, ...)
> and their code will work happily with HZ=100 but will explode with HZ=1000.
> IOW, this interface *requires* that all callers perform a
> seconds-to-jiffies conversion before calling hwspin_lock_timeout().  So
> why not reduce their effort and their ability to make mistakes by
> defining the API to take seconds?

I considered that, but then decided to use jiffies in order to be
consistent with wait_event_timeout/schedule_timeout (although I don't
return the remaining jiffies in case the lock is taken before the
timeout elapses), and also to allow user-selected granularity.

But I do kind of like the idea of not using jiffies. We can probably
even move to msecs, since anyway this is an error condition, and
people who needs a quick check should just use the trylock() version.

I'll do a quick respin of the patches with that and the
hwspinlock_internal.h comment above.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-01 07:23    [W:0.052 / U:1.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site