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:0.061 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site