From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw01.freescale.net (az33egw01.freescale.net [192.88.158.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw01.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D425BDDF44 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:26:03 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:24:46 -0600 From: Scott Wood To: Vitaly Bordug Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] powerpc: Move CPM command handling into the cpm drivers Message-ID: <20071126162446.GA4408@loki.buserror.net> References: <4745BB5F.6060002@scram.de> <20071123005121.4d38d877@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20071123005121.4d38d877@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:51:21AM +0300, Vitaly Bordug wrote: > Even that might be not enough - we may have simultaneous call of this func > in non-smp case... Do you really think that every piece of code that uses spinlocks in the kernel is broken on non-SMP? > I was thinking of some kind of refcount, so one that is going to issue CPM > command, must do say pq_cpmp_get() and another driver won't be able to > mangle with cpcr while it's not done with previous request. How on earth are you going to effect mutual exclusion using reference counting? -Scott