On Jan 8, 2008 1:20 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:13:37PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > It's already in the driver core to the most part. It remains to be seen
> > what is less complicated in the end: Transparent mutex-protected list
> > accesses provided by driver core (requires the iterator), or all the
> > necessary locking done by the drivers themselves (requires some more
> > lock-taking but perhaps fewer lock instances overall in the drivers, and
> > respective redefinitions and documentation of the driver core API).
>
> I favor changing the driver core api and doing this kind of thing there.
> It keeps the drivers simpler and should hopefully make their lives
> easier.
What about this?
#define class_for_each_dev(pos, head, member) \
for (mutex_lock(&(container_of(head, struct class, devices))->mutex), po
s = list_entry((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member); \
prefetch(pos->member.next), &pos->member != (head) ? 1 : (mutex_unlock(&
(container_of(head, struct class, devices))->mutex), 0); \
pos = list_entry(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member))
>
> > Semi off-topic: What about struct device.sem? Is there any chance to
> > rip this out of the driver core and let drivers serialize everything? I
> > suppose not...
>
> See the previous long threads about this very topic, that is what caused
> this class.sem patches :)
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
--
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/
