On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 02:01:31PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> Am 02.08.2016 um 07:44 schrieb Heiner Kallweit:
> > I think we can get rid of the spinlock protecting the kthread from being
> > interrupted by a wakeup in certain parts.
> > Even with the current implementation of the kthread the
Am 02.08.2016 um 07:44 schrieb Heiner Kallweit:
> I think we can get rid of the spinlock protecting the kthread from being
> interrupted by a wakeup in certain parts.
> Even with the current implementation of the kthread the only lost wakeup
> scenario could happen if the wakeup occurs between the
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> I think we can get rid of the spinlock protecting the kthread from being
> interrupted by a wakeup in certain parts.
> Even with the current implementation of the kthread the only lost wakeup
> scenario could happen if the wakeup
I think we can get rid of the spinlock protecting the kthread from being
interrupted by a wakeup in certain parts.
Even with the current implementation of the kthread the only lost wakeup
scenario could happen if the wakeup occurs between the kfifo_len check
and setting the state to
