From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Kuoppala Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Better i2c access latencies in high load situations Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:08:55 +0300 Message-ID: <1253102935.13914.7.camel@adserver2> References: <1253099829-17655-1-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@nokia.com> <20090916134944.4a329d62@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090916134944.4a329d62-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: ext Jean Delvare Cc: "ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org" , "linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Jean, On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:49 +0200, ext Jean Delvare wrote: > Can you please define "get a kick"? I don't know anything about > rt_mutex. > Sorry for using a vague metaphor. Documentation/rt-mutex.txt explains it as: "A low priority owner of a rt-mutex inherits the priority of a higher priority waiter until the rt-mutex is released. If the temporarily boosted owner blocks on a rt-mutex itself it propagates the priority boosting to the owner of the other rt_mutex it gets blocked on. The priority boosting is immediately removed once the rt_mutex has been unlocked." You might want to also take a look at Documentation/rt-mutex-design.txt --Mika