On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Yes, you can take mutexes in the module_init context. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
