On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:24:03PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 09:57 -0200, Luiz Fernando Capitulino wrote: > > Introduces URB write locking macros. > > ugh.. WHY ? Maybe we need a better description for the patch: the locking is already there (the 'lock' field in struct sub_serial_port), and there is no change of behaviour, just replacing a (spin_lock_t, int) by an atomic_t. The purpose of the changes is removing the spinlock, because it is used only to protect write_urb_busy, and if someday we need locking on other parts, we already have a semaphore (introduced by Capitulino some time ago, to fix a open()/close() race condition). -- Eduardo
Attachment:
pgp4YySDhKoEM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH 01/10] usb-serial: URB write locking macros.
- From: Luiz Fernando Capitulino <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 01/10] usb-serial: URB write locking macros.
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 01/10] usb-serial: URB write locking macros.
- Prev by Date: Re: stat64 for over 2TB file returned invalid st_blocks
- Next by Date: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 01/10] usb-serial: URB write locking macros.
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH 01/10] usb-serial: URB write locking macros.
- Index(es):
 |