Michael Buesch wrote:
In general, no.
But, for some sysfs attrs it is sufficient to only take
the mutex, because:
* We don't access hardware.
* We don't modify this data in a spinlock-only critical section.
Yes, I know that having two locks does not really fit the
"lock data, not code" model. B
On Thursday 07 September 2006 15:21, Larry Finger wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:34, Larry Finger wrote:
> >> + return -EPERM;
> >> +
> >
> > you want to take the spinlock lock here, too.
>
> Obviously, I copied the wrong model. Is it correct that one
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:34, Larry Finger wrote:
+ return -EPERM;
+
you want to take the spinlock lock here, too.
Obviously, I copied the wrong model. Is it correct that one should take both locks if your code will
touch the hardware, but the mute
On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:34, Larry Finger wrote:
> John,
>
> Please apply this patch by Martin Langer to wireless-2.6. It must follow the
> patch to "Add firmware
> version printout to wireless-2.6 (bcm43xx-softmac)". As originally submitted,
> the patch was
> appropriate for an obsole
John,
Please apply this patch by Martin Langer to wireless-2.6. It must follow the patch to "Add firmware
version printout to wireless-2.6 (bcm43xx-softmac)". As originally submitted, the patch was
appropriate for an obsolete version of bcm43xx-softmac, but I have updated and tested.
Thanks,
