From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/17] arch/arm/common: Add missing
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 18:43:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100526184358.GC6232@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201005261907.06198.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Why are "readl"s protected by spinlock anyway ? Can't we just move the locking
> past the code above ?
Good question - and there seems to be a deadlock waiting to happen -
sa1111_wake() re-takes the same lock.
I think we should kill all the spinlock in sa1111_resume().
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 7/17] arch/arm/common: Add missing spin_unlock_irqrestore
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:43:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100526184358.GC6232@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201005261907.06198.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Why are "readl"s protected by spinlock anyway ? Can't we just move the locking
> past the code above ?
Good question - and there seems to be a deadlock waiting to happen -
sa1111_wake() re-takes the same lock.
I think we should kill all the spinlock in sa1111_resume().
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/17] arch/arm/common: Add missing spin_unlock_irqrestore
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:43:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100526184358.GC6232@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201005261907.06198.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Why are "readl"s protected by spinlock anyway ? Can't we just move the locking
> past the code above ?
Good question - and there seems to be a deadlock waiting to happen -
sa1111_wake() re-takes the same lock.
I think we should kill all the spinlock in sa1111_resume().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-26 18:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-26 15:56 [PATCH 7/17] arch/arm/common: Add missing spin_unlock_irqrestore Julia Lawall
2010-05-26 15:56 ` Julia Lawall
2010-05-26 15:56 ` Julia Lawall
2010-05-26 17:07 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-26 17:07 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-26 17:07 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-26 18:43 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2010-05-26 18:43 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-05-26 18:43 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-05-26 19:13 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-26 19:13 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-26 19:13 ` Marek Vasut
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100526184358.GC6232@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.