On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:17:47AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 18:38 +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:05:47PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sure the version with 'volatile' will also be broken then. Sounds
> > > like the right answer is to fix the locking.
> >
> > But wish avoiding locking at all since this may delay the time stamp
> > recording. We (the LinuxPPS guys) niticed that just a single
> > instruction my degrade the time setting about 50%!
> >
> > I avoid locking just using a pointer and setting it to a dummy
> > structure when not used... is that wrong? :-o
>
> Almost certainly (admittedly said without looking).
Please take a look at the code. I'm quite sure that it's ok. :)
I just set a pointer to a dummy struct or a valid one. By doing like
this I don't need a lock in the irq handler since it writes always
into a valid area. At non irq time I simply use a mutex lock.
Ciao,
Rodolfo
--
GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giometti@enneenne.com
Linux Device Driver giometti@gnudd.com
Embedded Systems giometti@linux.it
UNIX programming phone: +39 349 2432127
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
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]