On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:11:30PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Richard Cochran > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(clocks_lock); /* protects 'clocks' */ > > Doesn't appear that clocks is manipulated at atomic context. Mutex instead? ... > If the spinlock is changed to a mutex that is held for the entire > function call, then the logic here can be simpler.
Grant, I am working on another go at this patch series. Stupid question: The caller of ptp_clock_register(), which takes the clocks_lock, is always a module_init() function. Is this always a safe context in which to call mutex_lock? Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
