On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > But these ones
> > > are raw locks rather than normal locks probably because that
> > > they are trivially an innermost and correct lock.
> >
> > As in the $SUBJECT case, I'd say.
> >
> > Although another point is related to "trivial": the data
> > is being protected through an operation too trivial to be
> > worth paying for any of that priority logic.
>
> A driver shouldn't get to decide that, IMO.
Not that I was talking about driver code...
> And if there is
> some policy in the -rt tree allowing these decisions, then
> it's exactly the kind of thing we don't want upsream.
Making raw spinlocks available allows those decisions...
On the other hand, I can't see things working sanely
without them being available. The problem seems to be
the usual one that crops up whenever anyone tries to
create a "bright line" decision algorithm in areas that
need flexibility. Any "bright line" rule will lead to
wrong results.
- Dave
-
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]
