From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761008AbYDNPns (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:43:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753838AbYDNPnk (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:43:40 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:22061 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752832AbYDNPnj (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:43:39 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cBpvh8jv1EGHX6EW2oao0UdBC2Bkq3rHxxZqaed9yrZ8aT5YNljCic8m20uG4jICwCniiF6RZwm1BkzKbKnUHW8UxcE+J/lM/d+K2+ejdqPqAtfE8NAwZnwu7xDiKyP+k71bjtIzJouUBXAY4x5HRHSAwgQPF0H/+s4D59f/b/k= Message-ID: <48037BA4.6070201@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:43:32 +0200 From: Jiri Slaby User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Timur Tabi CC: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Andrew Morton , York Sun , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Driver for Freescale 8610 and 5121 DIU References: <12053582234100-git-send-email-yorksun@freescale.com> <12053582231281-git-send-email-yorksun@freescale.com> <47D8572C.8090501@gmail.com> <47FFDBFF.1030809@gmail.com> <20080411221817.0b1eb414.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <48035E93.6070300@freescale.com> <48035F98.1020404@gmail.com> <48036001.10905@freescale.com> <4803620C.6020905@gmail.com> <48036649.6000409@freescale.com> <4803690A.3080105@gmail.com> <48036F00.6080200@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <48036F00.6080200@freescale.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/14/2008 04:49 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > Jiri Slaby wrote: >> On 04/14/2008 04:12 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: >>> Unfortunately, the author of the patch, York, is out this week, so I'll have to >>> take care of this. It'd be easier to modify rh_alloc() so that it doesn't >>> sleep, so that's what I'm going to do. >> Anyway, why do you need the spin lock there (and not mutex)? > > I don't know. A spinlock just seemed obvious. Why would I prefer a mutex? Mainly because you can sleep inside locked mutex and because spinlock shouldn't be used for too many lines of code (busy waiting etc.). I think ldd3 will be more descriptive than me here :).