Hi Sean,
> The code is GPLed but not currently available on the net. It is
> basically a little driver that registers a character device and
> then passes out the minor numbers to the PIKA board drivers.
>
> It was written to isolate all the character/sysfs code to one place
> since we have five d
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:13:43PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Sean MacLennan writes:
>
> > This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> > checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> > actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
>
> I don't require zer
On Mon, 05 May 2008 13:38:39 +1000
"Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Show us the code... It could be a bug in checkpatch or you using
> the wrong functions somewhere ...
The change to DEFINE_MUTEX and changing up/down to
mutex_lock/mutex_unlock solved the problem.
The code i
On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
>
> The code declares a global mutex:
>
> static DECLARE
Sean MacLennan writes:
> This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
I don't require zero checkpatch warnings or errors on patches before I
accept them. If what chec
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:06:55 +1000
"Michael Ellerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> > This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> > checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex.
> > Does it actually mean
On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
>
> The code declares a global mutex:
>
> static DECLARE_
This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
The code declares a global mutex:
static DECLARE_MUTEX(list_lock);
The odds of two accesses to the list_lock at the s
