Hi Vitaly, >>> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s(): Not able to issue CPM command\n", >>> + __FUNCTION__); >>> + return -EIO; >>> >> Do these need to be protected with a spin lock? >> > Even that might be not enough - we may have simultaneous call of this func in > non-smp case... > I was thinking of some kind of refcount, so one that is going to issue CPM > command, must do say pq_cpmp_get() > and another driver won't be able to mangle with cpcr while it's not done with > previous request. > > Yet I am not telling it was better the way it used to be - this approach > looks okay but needs some efforts to defend against > deadlocks while we are at it
Wouldn't spin_lock_irqsave() prevent a deadlock? Thanks, Jochen _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
