On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > But these ones > > > are raw locks rather than normal locks probably because that > > > they are trivially an innermost and correct lock. > > > > As in the $SUBJECT case, I'd say. > > > > Although another point is related to "trivial": the data > > is being protected through an operation too trivial to be > > worth paying for any of that priority logic. > > A driver shouldn't get to decide that, IMO.
Not that I was talking about driver code... > And if there is > some policy in the -rt tree allowing these decisions, then > it's exactly the kind of thing we don't want upsream. Making raw spinlocks available allows those decisions... On the other hand, I can't see things working sanely without them being available. The problem seems to be the usual one that crops up whenever anyone tries to create a "bright line" decision algorithm in areas that need flexibility. Any "bright line" rule will lead to wrong results. - Dave - 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/
