From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58639CA9EAF for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:15:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F9E20856 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:15:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2439639AbfJXMPJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:15:09 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40132 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2439626AbfJXMPJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:15:09 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC540AD79; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:15:07 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Mark Brown Cc: Jerome Brunet , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Russell King , Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 0/2] ASoC: hdmi-codec: fix locking issue In-Reply-To: <20191024113444.GF5207@sirena.co.uk> References: <20191023161203.28955-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <1jv9sfcpr8.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> <20191024113444.GF5207@sirena.co.uk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:34:44 +0200, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:53:31PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote: > > > With the revert, we are back to the bit ops. Even if it works, Mark's > > original comment on the bit ops still stands I think. This is why I'm > > proposing patch 2 but I don't really mind if it is applied or not. > > Yeah, it's not *required* but the atomic operations have lots of spiky > edges so a simpler locking construct would have less chance of running > into trouble later when someone's updating the code. If that's the reason, it should be mentioned specifically in the commit. That is, it's not about functionality or efficiency but just about the code readability. thanks, Takashi