Re: [PATCH 09/18] frv: switch do_timer() to xtime_update()

From: torbenh
Date: Mon Jan 24 2011 - 07:52:13 EST

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:01:49AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Torben Hohn wrote:
> > this code looks like its protecting __set_LEDS() with this lock also.
> > i dont think thats necessary.
> This changelog is horrible.

what i meant was that: if i do something while holding a lock,
it seems to be necessary to do it while holding the lock.

> This code does not look like protecting the __set_LEDS() call with the
> xtime_lock. The call happens to be inside the xtime_lock held region.
> Now instead of bringing up a weak argument "I dont think ..." you
> should provide a proper analysis why it's safe to move that code out.
> It's pretty simple:
> No other call site of __set_LEDS() is protected by xtime_lock, so
> xtime_lock does not protect anything related to __set_LEDS(). It's
> just inside the xtime_lock region for no good reason at all.
> Please be more careful when writing change logs, so a reviewer can
> understand the reasoning behind your change easily.

ok. will do.

> Also all arch/* patches are missing a "Cc: arch-maintainer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx".

i was planning to send it out with --cc-cmd=./scripts/
once you thought it was ok.
is that procedure ok ?
or should i add CC: lines to the commitlogs ?

> > {
> > @@ -61,10 +61,11 @@ static irqreturn_t timer_interrupt(int irq, void *dummy)
> > * CPU. We need to avoid to SMP race with it. NOTE: we don't need
> > * the irq version of write_lock because as just said we have irq
> > * locally disabled. -arca
> > + *
> > + * xtime_update takes the writelock.
> Errm. xtime_update write locks xtime_lock. Please be careful with comments.


> Thanks,
> tglx

torben Hohn
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at