From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756996AbXEQOgq (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 10:36:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754241AbXEQOgj (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 10:36:39 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.224]:40920 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754303AbXEQOgi (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 10:36:38 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ZdxHw/laJmXEpGWQDudRwzdwqf66l2istS+dek/SDeaug3X/FKQeiDvC5eHhK/itDA881dtOS0hnEM87xaUF5Pl/HsOFLVaWW0343PaaCsDNBsAId/nSrFmGhpTl9bZOAiHBq3c9AvI+8s4JtIsjWnxWSbcpdIjDt6TPhPa8VzM= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:36:36 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Thomas Gleixner" Subject: Re: [PATCH] INPUT: Sanitize PIT locking in pcspkr Cc: LKML , "Stable Team" , "Greg KH" , "Andrew Morton" , "Andi Kleen" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Ralf Baechle" , "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" , "Richard Henderson" In-Reply-To: <1179412525.3764.80.camel@chaos> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1179408962.3764.72.camel@chaos> <1179412525.3764.80.camel@chaos> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/17/07, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Dmitry, > > On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:15 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > +#include > > > > I don't see this file in include/asm-i386 and your patch only creates > > asm-x86_64... > > [tglx@inhell4 linux-2.6.21]$ ls include/asm-i386/i82* > include/asm-i386/i8253.h include/asm-i386/i8259.h > Yes, indeed. I wonder how did I manage not to see it... > > BTW, is there any reason 8253pit.h can't be used...? > > The i386 lock is already exported in i8253.h Right, since we do have i8253.h on i386 that question does not make sense. > > > Hmm... The best way IMO woudl be if arch code attached spinlock that > > should be used by pcspkr driver to pcspkr platform device (as > > platform_data) and we would not have private lock at all. > > Sounds ugly, but that's not material for now and cannot be applied to > older kernels, which need this fix as well. > But then the driver code does not care about arch details which is nice IMHO. > BTW, there are more creative PIT users in drivers/input which use the > global lock already, but the PIT usage there is definitely broken on > anything >= 2.6.21. > Are you talking about drivers/input/joystick/analog.c? What is broken there? -- Dmitry