On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2016-11-08 22:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I don't think you need extra race handling with that, but I might be wrong
> > as usual.
>
> There's obviously no way to determine which of the timeout or the
> interrupt that happens first without some race handling, so I don't
> know what you mean? If the timeout happens first, there is also a
> need to handle late hits from the irq that might come in during the
> preparation for the next step in the binary search. It gets messy
> quickly compared to the simplicity of the current implementation.
Gah, forgot about that timeout thingy. Fair enough.
Feel free to add an
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
Thanks,
tglx
