Hi!
> >Okay... but do we really need try_lock variant?
>
> We need a nonlocking, nonsleeping variant to do the query in the timer
> function (softirq context).
>
> >but what is try_lock semantics when taking multiple locks...?
>
> Currently, the same as the undelying down_trylock().
Okay, I guess this works for me.
> >Well, this will also trigger for thinkpad module compiled into kernel,
> >right?
>
> OK, I'm changing the DMI failure to KERN_WARNING. Subsequent hardware
> checks remains KERN_ERR, since failing those after passing the DMI
> check really is abnormal (and indicative of danger).
Yep, that sounds correct.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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]
