Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock

[Matt Fleming]

On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
> Seems the wrong approach to me: The call happening with the lock held
> is the wrong part imo, and hence the fix ought to be to drop the lock
> there.

But what about other platforms that provide a get_wallclock()
implementation such as the kvm or xen code? If we called get_wallclock()
without rtc_lock held we'd be requiring everyone to lock it in their
clock code, which is unnecessary work and increases the amount of code
that touches rtc_lock (not to mention spreading it across several
files).

I think it's much better to do the locking as high up the callstack as
possible and preferably in as few places as possible.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center

--
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/