On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:53:34 +0100 Jochen Friedrich wrote: > 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? > yes, I believe it is OK for now.
> Thanks, > Jochen -- Sincerely, Vitaly _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
