RE: [PATCH v5 4/8] thunderbolt: Communication with the ICM (firmware)

2016-07-31 Thread Levy, Amir (Jer)
On Sat, Jul 30 2016, 12:03 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:15:17 +0300 > Amir Levy wrote: > > > +int nhi_send_message(struct tbt_nhi_ctxt *nhi_ctxt, enum pdf_value > pdf, > > +u32 msg_len, const u8 *msg, bool ignore_icm_resp) { > >

RE: [PATCH v5 4/8] thunderbolt: Communication with the ICM (firmware)

2016-07-31 Thread Levy, Amir (Jer)
On Sat, Jul 30 2016, 12:48 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:15:17 +0300 > > Amir Levy wrote: > > > > > +static LIST_HEAD(controllers_list); static > > >

Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] thunderbolt: Communication with the ICM (firmware)

2016-07-29 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:15:17 +0300 > Amir Levy wrote: > > > +static LIST_HEAD(controllers_list); > > +static DECLARE_RWSEM(controllers_list_rwsem); > > Why use a semaphore when simple spinlock or mutex

Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] thunderbolt: Communication with the ICM (firmware)

2016-07-29 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:15:17 +0300 Amir Levy wrote: > +static LIST_HEAD(controllers_list); > +static DECLARE_RWSEM(controllers_list_rwsem); Why use a semaphore when simple spinlock or mutex would be better? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe