Hi Pete,
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:02:07 -0800
Pete Zaitcev <[email protected]> wrote:
| On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:14:49 -0200, Luiz Fernando Capitulino <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| > The spinlock makes the code less clear, error prone, and we already a
| > semaphore in the struct usb_serial_port.
| >
| > The spinlocks _seems_ useless to me.
|
| Dude, semaphores are not compatible with interrupts. Surely you
| understand that?
Sure thing man, take a look at this thread:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113216151918308&w=2
My comment 'we already have a semaphore in struct usb_serial_port'
was about what we've discussed in that thread, where question like
'why should we have yet another lock here?' have been made.
And *not* 'let's use the semaphore instead'.
If _speed_ does not make difference, the spinlock seems useless,
because we could use atomic_t instead.
--
Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
