Re: [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler

Hello Haavard,

> Hmm...perhaps we can eliminate the locking in the status handler
> too...? Does anyone see a problem with this patch?

I have not seen any problem so far, besides, I am very happy with a
lockless interrupt handling, because this helps reducing latencies.

Tested it on top of the other 5 patches, and everything still works,
also tested under stress conditions.

So:
Acked-by: Remy Bohmer <[email protected]>


Kind Regards,

Remy
--
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: [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
    • From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
    • From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
    • From: "Remy Bohmer" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
    • From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]