Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:17:53AM +0100 Christoph Hellwig ha dit: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > >use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver > > > > I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in > > idt77252 driver", since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, > > which are always binary): > > And the binary semaphore terminology i a little confusing. struct > semaphore is a full counting semaphore that is only used as a binary > semaphore if we want to speak in CS terms. Than everyone else just > caled them semaphore before these patches started to show up :) i'll take your suggestion into account for future patches. my intention behind the usage of the term binary semaphore was to be more precise, but i agree that it can be confusing -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity (Simone de Beauvoir) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > >use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver > > I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in > idt77252 driver", since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, > which are always binary): And the binary semaphore terminology i a little confusing. struct semaphore is a full counting semaphore that is only used as a binary semaphore if we want to speak in CS terms. Than everyone else just caled them semaphore before these patches started to show up :) - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
Hi, On 4/23/07, Eddie C. Dost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above. Yes, even on UP different threads accessing the same data could race. Mutexes (== binary semaphores) are *required* to synchronize access to shared data. You might be confusing mutexes with spinlocks. Spinlocks _are_ compiled away on UP (actually !CONFIG_SMP && !CONFIG_PREEMPT) kernels, but that is still safe because spinlocks are busy-waiting loops (unlike mutexes and semaphores that block) and hence no thread is allowed to sleep when holding a spinlock. On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: > > Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config > > tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor > > machines. Does this work with mutexes? > > afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary semaphores that are > used as mutexes (always locked and unlocked by the same > process/thread): Mutexes / binary semaphores / spinlocks are used to synchronize access to shared data by *multiple* threads ... there is no meaning in locking access to something if we know only one thread will ever touch it. Cheers, S - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
hi, El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:19AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: > as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not > defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course > correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above. i just checked this, neither the mutex header nor implementation files handle things different for CONFIG_SMP. thanks for your comments > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: > > > > > Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config > > > tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor > > > machines. Does this work with mutexes? > > > > afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary semaphores that are > > used as mutexes (always locked and unlocked by the same > > process/thread): > > > > ".. the semaphore type can officially be considered to be on its way > > out. New code should not use semaphores, and old code which uses > > semaphores as mutexes should be converted over when an opportunity > > presents itself." > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/167034/ > > > > please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm just doing my first steps with > > linux kernel development -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona You must have a plan. If you don't have a plan, you'll become part of somebody else's plan .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
Hi, Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor machines. Does this work with mutexes? Best regards, Eddie On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:55:20AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400 Kyle Moffett ha dit: > > > On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > >use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver > > > > I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in > > idt77252 driver", since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, > > which are always binary): > > >- struct semaphoremutex; > > > > and this is a mutex, not a spinlock: > > >+ struct mutexmutex; > > > > Everything else looks good though > > you're totally right. like in another patch i sent at the same time i > messed up the description. as you point out it should read "Use mutex > instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver". in the last days i > reported some spinlock related bugs, i suppose that made me write > spinlock instead of mutex ... > > thanks for your comments > > -- > Matthias Kaehlcke > Linux Application Developer > Barcelona > > If you don't know where you are going, >you will probably end up somewhere else > (Laurence J. Peter) > .''`. > using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : > `. `'` > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- -- Christian Dost Technical Director R ATecoM realizing visions GmbH Pascalstrasse 67 D-52076 Aachen Germany Fon: +49/2408/9596-0 Fax: +49/2408/9596-900 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.atecom.com Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB# 5941, Sitz: Aachen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Bernd Leister, Robert Bonnie USt.-Id. Nr. / VATID: DE 811 66 99 76 Steuernummer/Tax-ID: 225/5775/0558 - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
Hi, as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above. Regards, Eddie On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: > > > Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config > > tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor > > machines. Does this work with mutexes? > > afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary semaphores that are > used as mutexes (always locked and unlocked by the same > process/thread): > > ".. the semaphore type can officially be considered to be on its way > out. New code should not use semaphores, and old code which uses > semaphores as mutexes should be converted over when an opportunity > presents itself." > > http://lwn.net/Articles/167034/ > > please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm just doing my first steps with > linux kernel development > > regards > > -- > Matthias Kaehlcke > Linux Application Developer > Barcelona > > C treats you like a consenting adult. Pascal treats you like a > naughty child. Ada treats you like a criminal > (Bruce Powel Douglass) > .''`. > using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : > `. `'` > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- -- Christian Dost Technical Director R ATecoM realizing visions GmbH Pascalstrasse 67 D-52076 Aachen Germany Fon: +49/2408/9596-0 Fax: +49/2408/9596-900 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.atecom.com Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB# 5941, Sitz: Aachen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Bernd Leister, Robert Bonnie USt.-Id. Nr. / VATID: DE 811 66 99 76 Steuernummer/Tax-ID: 225/5775/0558 - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: > Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config > tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor > machines. Does this work with mutexes? afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary semaphores that are used as mutexes (always locked and unlocked by the same process/thread): ".. the semaphore type can officially be considered to be on its way out. New code should not use semaphores, and old code which uses semaphores as mutexes should be converted over when an opportunity presents itself." http://lwn.net/Articles/167034/ please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm just doing my first steps with linux kernel development regards -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona C treats you like a consenting adult. Pascal treats you like a naughty child. Ada treats you like a criminal (Bruce Powel Douglass) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400 Kyle Moffett ha dit: > On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > >use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver > > I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in > idt77252 driver", since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, > which are always binary): > >-struct semaphoremutex; > > and this is a mutex, not a spinlock: > >+struct mutexmutex; > > Everything else looks good though you're totally right. like in another patch i sent at the same time i messed up the description. as you point out it should read "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver". in the last days i reported some spinlock related bugs, i suppose that made me write spinlock instead of mutex ... thanks for your comments -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else (Laurence J. Peter) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400 Kyle Moffett ha dit: On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver, since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, which are always binary): -struct semaphoremutex; and this is a mutex, not a spinlock: +struct mutexmutex; Everything else looks good though you're totally right. like in another patch i sent at the same time i messed up the description. as you point out it should read Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver. in the last days i reported some spinlock related bugs, i suppose that made me write spinlock instead of mutex ... thanks for your comments -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else (Laurence J. Peter) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor machines. Does this work with mutexes? afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary semaphores that are used as mutexes (always locked and unlocked by the same process/thread): .. the semaphore type can officially be considered to be on its way out. New code should not use semaphores, and old code which uses semaphores as mutexes should be converted over when an opportunity presents itself. http://lwn.net/Articles/167034/ please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm just doing my first steps with linux kernel development regards -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona C treats you like a consenting adult. Pascal treats you like a naughty child. Ada treats you like a criminal (Bruce Powel Douglass) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
Hi, Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor machines. Does this work with mutexes? Best regards, Eddie On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:55:20AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400 Kyle Moffett ha dit: On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver, since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, which are always binary): - struct semaphoremutex; and this is a mutex, not a spinlock: + struct mutexmutex; Everything else looks good though you're totally right. like in another patch i sent at the same time i messed up the description. as you point out it should read Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver. in the last days i reported some spinlock related bugs, i suppose that made me write spinlock instead of mutex ... thanks for your comments -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else (Laurence J. Peter) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- -- Christian Dost Technical Director RD ATecoM realizing visions GmbH Pascalstrasse 67 D-52076 Aachen Germany Fon: +49/2408/9596-0 Fax: +49/2408/9596-900 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.atecom.com Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB# 5941, Sitz: Aachen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Bernd Leister, Robert Bonnie USt.-Id. Nr. / VATID: DE 811 66 99 76 Steuernummer/Tax-ID: 225/5775/0558 - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
Hi, as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above. Regards, Eddie On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor machines. Does this work with mutexes? afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary semaphores that are used as mutexes (always locked and unlocked by the same process/thread): .. the semaphore type can officially be considered to be on its way out. New code should not use semaphores, and old code which uses semaphores as mutexes should be converted over when an opportunity presents itself. http://lwn.net/Articles/167034/ please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm just doing my first steps with linux kernel development regards -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona C treats you like a consenting adult. Pascal treats you like a naughty child. Ada treats you like a criminal (Bruce Powel Douglass) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- -- Christian Dost Technical Director RD ATecoM realizing visions GmbH Pascalstrasse 67 D-52076 Aachen Germany Fon: +49/2408/9596-0 Fax: +49/2408/9596-900 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.atecom.com Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB# 5941, Sitz: Aachen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Bernd Leister, Robert Bonnie USt.-Id. Nr. / VATID: DE 811 66 99 76 Steuernummer/Tax-ID: 225/5775/0558 - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
hi, El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:19AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above. i just checked this, neither the mutex header nor implementation files handle things different for CONFIG_SMP. thanks for your comments On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor machines. Does this work with mutexes? afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary semaphores that are used as mutexes (always locked and unlocked by the same process/thread): .. the semaphore type can officially be considered to be on its way out. New code should not use semaphores, and old code which uses semaphores as mutexes should be converted over when an opportunity presents itself. http://lwn.net/Articles/167034/ please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm just doing my first steps with linux kernel development -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona You must have a plan. If you don't have a plan, you'll become part of somebody else's plan .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
Hi, On 4/23/07, Eddie C. Dost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above. Yes, even on UP different threads accessing the same data could race. Mutexes (== binary semaphores) are *required* to synchronize access to shared data. You might be confusing mutexes with spinlocks. Spinlocks _are_ compiled away on UP (actually !CONFIG_SMP !CONFIG_PREEMPT) kernels, but that is still safe because spinlocks are busy-waiting loops (unlike mutexes and semaphores that block) and hence no thread is allowed to sleep when holding a spinlock. On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit: Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor machines. Does this work with mutexes? afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary semaphores that are used as mutexes (always locked and unlocked by the same process/thread): Mutexes / binary semaphores / spinlocks are used to synchronize access to shared data by *multiple* threads ... there is no meaning in locking access to something if we know only one thread will ever touch it. Cheers, S - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver, since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, which are always binary): And the binary semaphore terminology i a little confusing. struct semaphore is a full counting semaphore that is only used as a binary semaphore if we want to speak in CS terms. Than everyone else just caled them semaphore before these patches started to show up :) - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:17:53AM +0100 Christoph Hellwig ha dit: On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver, since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, which are always binary): And the binary semaphore terminology i a little confusing. struct semaphore is a full counting semaphore that is only used as a binary semaphore if we want to speak in CS terms. Than everyone else just caled them semaphore before these patches started to show up :) i'll take your suggestion into account for future patches. my intention behind the usage of the term binary semaphore was to be more precise, but i agree that it can be confusing -- Matthias Kaehlcke Linux Application Developer Barcelona I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity (Simone de Beauvoir) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `- - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
On 4/23/07, Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- diff --git a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c index b4b8014..e3cf141 100644 --- a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c +++ b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c @@ -2430,7 +2430,7 @@ idt77252_open(struct atm_vcc *vcc) set_bit(ATM_VF_ADDR, >flags); - down(>mutex); + mutex_lock(>mutex); Note that you're actually replacing a semaphore with a mutex here (and not a mutex with a spinlock). I guess that should be fine and desirable as long as the semaphore was indeed being used a mutex (binary) in this code. - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver", since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, which are always binary): - struct semaphoremutex; and this is a mutex, not a spinlock: + struct mutexmutex; Everything else looks good though Cheers, Kyle Moffett - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver, since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex, which are always binary): - struct semaphoremutex; and this is a mutex, not a spinlock: + struct mutexmutex; Everything else looks good though Cheers, Kyle Moffett - 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/
Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
On 4/23/07, Matthias Kaehlcke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- diff --git a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c index b4b8014..e3cf141 100644 --- a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c +++ b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c @@ -2430,7 +2430,7 @@ idt77252_open(struct atm_vcc *vcc) set_bit(ATM_VF_ADDR, vcc-flags); - down(card-mutex); + mutex_lock(card-mutex); Note that you're actually replacing a semaphore with a mutex here (and not a mutex with a spinlock). I guess that should be fine and desirable as long as the semaphore was indeed being used a mutex (binary) in this code. - 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/
