On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:17:47AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 18:38 +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:05:47PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > I'm sure the version with 'volatile' will also be broken then. Sounds > > > like the right answer is to fix the locking. > > > > But wish avoiding locking at all since this may delay the time stamp > > recording. We (the LinuxPPS guys) niticed that just a single > > instruction my degrade the time setting about 50%! > > > > I avoid locking just using a pointer and setting it to a dummy > > structure when not used... is that wrong? :-o > > Almost certainly (admittedly said without looking).
Please take a look at the code. I'm quite sure that it's ok. :) I just set a pointer to a dummy struct or a valid one. By doing like this I don't need a lock in the irq handler since it writes always into a valid area. At non irq time I simply use a mutex lock. Ciao, Rodolfo -- GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Device Driver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Embedded Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNIX programming phone: +39 349 2432127 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
