From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751140AbWDEHaU (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2006 03:30:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751141AbWDEHaU (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2006 03:30:20 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:43682 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751140AbWDEHaT (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2006 03:30:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:29:09 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Roger Luethi Cc: zlynx@acm.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc1-mm1 Message-Id: <20060405002909.2ab4482b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060405070150.GA10351@k3.hellgate.ch> References: <20060404014504.564bf45a.akpm@osdl.org> <1144187618.26812.7.camel@localhost> <20060404150953.41d7e04e.akpm@osdl.org> <20060405070150.GA10351@k3.hellgate.ch> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Roger Luethi wrote: > > Any suggestions for an elegant solution? Move the locking down lower, so it just locks the stuff which needs locking? It all depends on what the lock's role is, and so often that's a big secret. If the intention is to prevent concurrent execution of mdio_read() (reasonable) and we really need that 1 msec delay between writing the registers and reading back the result then we're somewhat screwed. Either use a sleeping lock to protect that hardware state or go back to using udelay().