Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem: > 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.
I've added the spinlock to have a barrier in any case. Thanks, //richard -- 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/
