On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 01:40:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > > My point is that the lock should be used to protect specific data. Thus, it > would be more correct to say, "spinlock foo is taken because > pps_register_source() accesses variable bar". > > That way, if someone else wants to access "bar", they know that they need > to take lock "foo". Ah, ok! I see. :) Thanks, Rodolfo -- GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: [email protected] Linux Device Driver [email protected] Embedded Systems [email protected] UNIX programming phone: +39 349 2432127 - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks
- From: "Satyam Sharma" <[email protected]>
- Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks
- References:
- [PATCH] LinuxPPS - definitive version
- From: Rodolfo Giometti <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS - definitive version
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS - definitive version
- From: Rodolfo Giometti <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS - definitive version
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS - definitive version
- From: Rodolfo Giometti <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS - definitive version
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- LinuxPPS & spinlocks
- From: Rodolfo Giometti <[email protected]>
- Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks
- From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
- Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks
- From: Rodolfo Giometti <[email protected]>
- Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks
- From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] LinuxPPS - definitive version
- Prev by Date: swap-prefetch: A smart way to make good use of idle resources (was: updatedb)
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- Previous by thread: Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks
- Next by thread: Re: LinuxPPS & spinlocks
- Index(es):
 |