From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rjw@rjwysocki.net (Rafael J. Wysocki) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:10:48 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock' In-Reply-To: <1540878.9slRi6Q7xb@wuerfel> References: <1540878.9slRi6Q7xb@wuerfel> Message-ID: <1578470.DLzaBp4j3T@vostro.rjw.lan> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Saturday, September 26, 2015 09:33:56 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 26 September 2015 11:40:00 Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 25 September 2015 at 15:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > So if you allow something like debugfs to update your structure, how > > > do you make sure there is the proper locking? > > > > Not really sure at all.. Isn't there some debugfs locking that will > > jump in, to avoid updation of fields to the same device? > > No, if you need any locking to access variable, you cannot use the > simple debugfs helpers but have to provide your own functions. > > > >> Anyway, that problem isn't here for sure as its between two > > >> unsigned-longs. So, should I just move it to bool and resend ? > > > > > > I guess it might be more convenient to fold this into the other patch, > > > because we seem to be splitting hairs here. > > > > I can and that's what I did. But then Arnd asked me to separate it > > out. I can fold it back if that's what you want. > > It still makes sense to keep it separate I think, the patch is clearly > different from the other parts. I just don't see much point in going from unsigned long to u32 and then from 32 to bool if we can go directly to bool in one go. Thanks, Rafael