Re: [RFC PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoidrecursive spinlocks

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:41:46 -0700
Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 06/05/2012 04:48 PM, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Are there still concerns about the additional lock? I'll resend V2
> >> tomorrow with the single whitespace fix if I don't hear anything back today.
> > 
> > I understand your saying. Looks good.
> > However, I am not expert of linux-uart core system.
> > So, I'd like UART maintainer to give us your opinion.
> 
> Greg, Alan,
> 
> any concerns with the locking approach I've adopted in the patch?

Only the one I noted in my reply the first time around which is that you
can't permit tty->low_latency=1 unless your tty receive path is not an
IRQ path. From a locking point of view the change makes sense anyway.

Going back over it your console locking also needs care - an oops or
printk within the areas the private lock covers will hang the box. That
should also probably be a trylock style lock as with the other lock on
that path

Alan
--
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/