Re: [UBUNTU:acpi/ec] Use semaphore instead of spinlock

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 18:14 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> updated version:
> 
> From: Ben Collins <[email protected]>
> 
> [UBUNTU:acpi/ec] Use semaphore instead of spinlock to get rid of missed
> interrupts on ACPI EC (embedded controller)


that is odd.

first of all this should use a mutex not a semaphore.

Second, if this isn't used in irq context, then just dropping the
"_irqsave" from the spinlocks should be enough to actually get rid of
the missed interrupts.... and if it is used there then I highly question
your use of semaphores etc...

-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [UBUNTU:acpi/ec] Use semaphore instead of spinlock
    • From: Voluspa <[email protected]>
  • Re: [UBUNTU:acpi/ec] Use semaphore instead of spinlock
    • From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm] tasklet_unlock_wait() cpu_relax()
• Next by Date: Re: [Ubuntu PATCH] Broadcom wireless patch, PCIE/Mactel support
• Previous by thread: Re: [UBUNTU:acpi/ec] Use semaphore instead of spinlock
• Next by thread: [Ubuntu PATCH] Broadcom wireless patch, PCIE/Mactel support
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]