On 05/23/2013 04:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:06:16PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>
>> This patch updates the adds a flags parameter to the regmap lock and unlock
>> callbacks and uses spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_restore() for the mmio
>> case. This allows us to use regmap-mmio from different contexts.
>
> This seems really invasive, why not just have the lock that gets passed
> in point to a struct which has both the lock and the flags? As far as
> the core is concerned the lock is just whatever data is required to do
> the locking, the fact that it's actually two values is an implementation
> detail of this locking implementation.
I think that won't work. spin_lock_irqsave() will write to the flags
parameter before it has successfully taken the look. So if a process running
on another CPU tries to acquire the the lock while it is already held we'll
end up overwriting the flags. E.g:
CPU0 CPU1
spin_lock_irqsave()
- write flags
spin_lock_irqsave()
- overwrite flags
spin_unlock_irqrestore()
- restore wrong flags
Hence flags needs to go onto the stack.
- Lars
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
