Re: [PATCH 09/18] frv: switch do_timer() to xtime_update()

[torbenh <torbenh@gmx.de>]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:01:49AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Torben Hohn wrote:
> 
> > this code looks like its protecting __set_LEDS() with this lock also.
> > i dont think thats necessary.
> 
> This changelog is horrible. 

agreed.
what i meant was that: if i do something while holding a lock,
it seems to be necessary to do it while holding the lock.


> 
> This code does not look like protecting the __set_LEDS() call with the
> xtime_lock. The call happens to be inside the xtime_lock held region.
> 
> Now instead of bringing up a weak argument "I dont think ..." you
> should provide a proper analysis why it's safe to move that code out.
> 
> It's pretty simple:
> 
> No other call site of __set_LEDS() is protected by xtime_lock, so
> xtime_lock does not protect anything related to __set_LEDS(). It's
> just inside the xtime_lock region for no good reason at all.
> 
> Please be more careful when writing change logs, so a reviewer can
> understand the reasoning behind your change easily.

ok. will do.

> 
> Also all arch/* patches are missing a "Cc: arch-maintainer@somewhere.xxx".

i was planning to send it out with --cc-cmd=./scripts/get_maintainers.pl
once you thought it was ok.
is that procedure ok ?
or should i add CC: lines to the commitlogs ?


> 
> >  {
> > @@ -61,10 +61,11 @@ static irqreturn_t timer_interrupt(int irq, void *dummy)
> >  	 * CPU. We need to avoid to SMP race with it. NOTE: we don't need
> >  	 * the irq version of write_lock because as just said we have irq
> >  	 * locally disabled. -arca
> > +	 *
> > +	 * xtime_update takes the writelock.
> 
>   Errm. xtime_update write locks xtime_lock. Please be careful with comments.

ok

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx

-- 
torben Hohn