From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1BzneL-0000zE-Hn for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:36:34 -0400 Received: from zcard303.ca.nortel.com (zcard303.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.59]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i7P2aT511501 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from linhd by linhd-2.ca.nortel.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BzneH-0007FV-00 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:36:29 -0400 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org References: <20040824120929.1377.qmail@web52204.mail.yahoo.com> <1093350246.14552.12435.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> From: Linh Dang Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:36:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1093350246.14552.12435.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> (David Woodhouse's message of "Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:24:06 +0100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: "Linh Dang" Subject: Re: Bottom halves being disabled List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 05:09 -0700, Ed Co wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> In the NOR driver code, the spin locks are acquired >> everywhere with bottom halves disabled using the >> spin_lock_bh() API. My doubt is why are the bottom >> halves disabled? (Doesn't that add to the real time >> latency on the system!) >> >> Hoping someone would clear the doubt > > Because we intend the erase completion to be asynchronous, hence we > lock against the timers which may one day check for it. There's no > real reason we couldn't switch to spin_lock() for now. Is it safe to convert those spin_locks to mutexes? -- Linh Dang