Hi!
On Wed 2011-05-18 16:29:35, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:18:38PM +0200, Pavel Herrmann wrote:
> > spi_sync call uses its spi_message parameter to keep completion information,
> > having this structure static is not thread-safe, potentially causing one
> > thread
On Thursday, May 19, 2011 02:51:40 PM Pavel Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thursday, May 19, 2011 02:35:08 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > you're potentially doing with this:
> > In some other mail, you said "just add the locking". Pavel H.
> > actually produced patch doing so...
>
> yes, that was the
Hi
On Thursday, May 19, 2011 02:35:08 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
> > you're potentially doing with this:
> In some other mail, you said "just add the locking". Pavel H.
> actually produced patch doing so...
yes, that was the original version of the patch. while I agree with Marek on
locks not being
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 02:51:40PM +0200, Pavel Herrmann wrote:
> @@ -52,7 +53,14 @@ static int max_read(struct device *dev, int channel)
> MAX_CTRL_PD0 | MAX_CTRL_PD1 |
> MAX_CTRL_SGL | MAX_CTRL_UNI | MAX_CTRL_STR;
>
> + /* spi_sync require
On Thursday, May 19, 2011 09:31:21 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I'm not sure that this is right. Taking the lock around spi_sync() ensures
> that two concurrent spi_sync()s can't happen in parallel, but with this you
> could end up with another happening as soon as this lock is released -
