Re: Locking in the clk API

[Saravana Kannan]

On 01/27/2011 01:07 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > For internal tree purposes, does .set_termios need to be atomic? Can it
> > > grab mutexes instead of spinlock?
> >
> > I think I already answered that question above where I said "protect
> > against the interrupt handler accessing the port->* stuff".
>
> I'm not sure you answered it correctly however as the locking nowdays is
> a bit different.
>
> Architecturally the termios handling doesn't need a spin lock nor is it
> called under one. In fact it's vital this is the case because of USB.

Thanks for the clarification Alan. This is what I was looking for.

-Saravana

--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/