Re: [PATCH] wireless: convert reg_regdb_search_lock to mutex

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 08:24:35PM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 22:56 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 05:54:50PM +0530, Senthil Balasubramanian wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:54:16AM +0530, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:33:38PM +0530, Senthil Balasubramanian wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:19:00AM +0530, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > > > Stanse discovered that kmalloc can be called with GFP_KERNEL while
> > > > > This commit log is confusing. It Should be "Stanse discovered kmalloc
> > > > > was called with GFP_KERNEL". Obviously kmalloc with GFP_KERNEL shouldn't
> > > > > be used while holding a spinlock.
> > > > > > holding this spinlock.  It can be a mutex instead.
> > > > 
> > > > Not half so confusing as your criticism... :-)
> > > sorry! if my mail wasn't proper. I didn't meant to blame/criticize.
> > > I was confused when I read the commit log and so I replied.
> > > > 
> > > > Are you objecting to "can be" instead of "was"?
> > > I am not objecting anything...
> > 
> > Criticism is fine -- I just don't understand what you were saying or
> > what you think I should have said in the commit log.
> 
> English at work ... let me guess:
> 
> For John: "can" == "it could happen that"
> For Senthil: "can" == "may"
> 
> (when really you may NOT do GFP_KERNEL allocations in atomic context)

Ah, that seems like a plausible explanation for the confusion.
Bitte mein herr!

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.