On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 01:12:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <b...@bgdev.pl> wrote:
> >>> +static void regmap_lock_unlock_empty(void *__map) > >> ..._none()? > > Too late, Mark already applied it. > Ah, Mark always works at speed of light! An incremental patch is always possible. > >> Why not to introduce positive switch, namely > >> bool mutex_lock; // choose better name > >> and assign ..._none() by default? > > Because we don't want to break all the existing regmaps, if map->lock > > or map->unlock is empty, regmap core decides internally whether to use > > a mutex or a spinlock. > Good point. > So, it means the options like: nomutex (false — mutex is in use) or > nolock (true — disable locking). > From those the latter looks better to me and IIUC you went that way. Yup.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
