On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:20:09 +0100 Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-09-18 am 20:05 -0500, ysgrifennodd Olof Johansson:
> > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:56:37 -0700 "Dan Williams" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > op.src_type = PG; op.src = pg;
> > op.dest_type = BUF; op.dest = buf;
> > op.len = len;
> > dma_async_commit(chan, op);
>
> At OLS Linus suggested it should distinguish between sync and async
> events for locking reasons.
>
> if(dma_async_commit(foo) == SYNC_COMPLETE) {
> finalise_stuff();
> }
>
> else /* will call foo->callback(foo->dev_id) */
>
> because otherwise you have locking complexities - the callback wants to
> take locks to guard the object it works on but if it is called
> synchronously - eg if hardware is busy and we fall back - it might
> deadlock with the caller of dmaa_async_foo() who also needs to hold the
> lock.
Good point, sounds very reasonable to me.
-Olof
-
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]
