From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965691AbXGSRaK (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:30:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765607AbXGSR3w (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:29:52 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37593 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759991AbXGSR3v (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:29:51 -0400 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: "Dmitry Torokhov" Subject: Re: [PATCH for review] [12/48] x86_64: use the global PIT lock Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:29:39 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20070719348.540885000@suse.de> <20070719134841.5677614E6E@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707191929.40016.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 19 July 2007 17:22:38 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Andi, > > On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > From: Thomas Gleixner > > > > Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the > > PIT access all over the place. > > > > Like I said before I'd be more happy if spinlock was attached to a > platform device that pcspkr binds to so the arch code would control > wehther we use a private spinlock or a global one (I sent a patch to > that effect earlier). Not sure that flexibility is needed. Why would an architecture ever want to have more than one lock for this? And we normally don't need sysdevs for locks, they seem to be quite unrelated. AFAIK sysdevs are just for suspend/resume, and even for that they seem to get obsoleted now. -Andi