From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:41:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4FDFA09A.4030405@linux.intel.com> References: <8854635ac5471f8671b93c65e3663eb1cb204c9d.1338454156.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com> <4FC90BAD.3080606@linux.intel.com> <4FCE8307.3050901@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:64931 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753658Ab2FRVnE (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:43:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Tomoya MORINAGA Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Feng Tang , Alexander Stein , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Cox , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On 06/05/2012 04:48 PM, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Darren Hart wrote: >> Are there still concerns about the additional lock? I'll resend V2 >> tomorrow with the single whitespace fix if I don't hear anything back today. > > I understand your saying. Looks good. > However, I am not expert of linux-uart core system. > So, I'd like UART maintainer to give us your opinion. Greg, Alan, any concerns with the locking approach I've adopted in the patch? Thanks, -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel