From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13jsSp-0005Ox-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:12:43 +0100 Message-ID: <39E65472.8A7A2E96@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:16:50 -0700 From: Alice Hennessy MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: mtd@infradead.org, ahennessy@mvista.com Subject: Re: Flash chip locking References: <16397.962188563@cygnus.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: David Woodhouse wrote: > Unfortunately, we have to consider the fact that this lock will also be > obtained from a Bottom Half context, when the "has the erase finished y= et?" > timer runs. Therefore, all occurrences of spin_lock in the main code ha= ve > to be spin_lock_bh()=B9 instead of the nurmal (and almost free) spin_lo= ck(). > > Was the "has the erase finished yet?" timer the only reason for using spin_lock_bh instead of spin_lock? Since the timer isn't implemented ye= t, spin_lock can be used at the moment, correct? I'm experimenting with th= e driver in an environment that can only tolerate disabling the bottom hal= f for very brief periods. Alice To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org