Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2005 22:18 schrieb Luiz Fernando Capitulino:
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:02:07 -0800
> Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:14:49 -0200, Luiz Fernando Capitulino <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > The spinlock makes the code less clear, error prone, and we already a
> | > semaphore in the struct usb_serial_port.
> | >
> | > The spinlocks _seems_ useless to me.
> |
> | Dude, semaphores are not compatible with interrupts. Surely you
> | understand that?
>
> Sure thing man, take a look at this thread:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113216151918308&w=2
>
> My comment 'we already have a semaphore in struct usb_serial_port'
> was about what we've discussed in that thread, where question like
> 'why should we have yet another lock here?' have been made.
>
> And *not* 'let's use the semaphore instead'.
>
> If _speed_ does not make difference, the spinlock seems useless,
> because we could use atomic_t instead.
You can atomically set _one_ value using atomic_t. A spinlock allows
that and other more complex schemes.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
