On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:24:03PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 09:57 -0200, Luiz Fernando Capitulino wrote: > > Introduces URB write locking macros. > > ugh.. WHY ?
Maybe we need a better description for the patch: the locking is already there (the 'lock' field in struct sub_serial_port), and there is no change of behaviour, just replacing a (spin_lock_t, int) by an atomic_t. The purpose of the changes is removing the spinlock, because it is used only to protect write_urb_busy, and if someday we need locking on other parts, we already have a semaphore (introduced by Capitulino some time ago, to fix a open()/close() race condition). -- Eduardo
pgpm7rW968gck.pgp
Description: PGP signature
