On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > + spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock); > + ubi->fm_work_scheduled = 0; > + spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock);
Andrew Morton once said me that if I am protecting an integer change like this with a spinlock, I have a problem in my locking design. He was right for my particular case. Integer is changes atomic. The only other thing spinlock adds are the barriers. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Finland Oy Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 Domiciled in Helsinki This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
