Re: Locking in the clk API
From: Saravana Kannan
Date: Thu Jan 27 2011 - 22:29:43 EST
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.
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/