On 2016-11-09 16:06, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2016-11-08 22:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> I don't think you need extra race handling with that, but I might be wrong >>> as usual. >> >> There's obviously no way to determine which of the timeout or the >> interrupt that happens first without some race handling, so I don't >> know what you mean? If the timeout happens first, there is also a >> need to handle late hits from the irq that might come in during the >> preparation for the next step in the binary search. It gets messy >> quickly compared to the simplicity of the current implementation. > > Gah, forgot about that timeout thingy. Fair enough. > > Feel free to add an > > Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
Thanks for looking! Cheers, Peter
