On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:24:46 -0600 Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:51:21AM +0300, Vitaly Bordug wrote: > > Even that might be not enough - we may have simultaneous call of > > this func in non-smp case... > > Do you really think that every piece of code that uses spinlocks in > the kernel is broken on non-SMP? > No. I think spinlock is not universal save thing in such cases. See below.
> > I was thinking of some kind of refcount, so one that is going to > > issue CPM command, must do say pq_cpmp_get() and another driver > > won't be able to mangle with cpcr while it's not done with previous > > request. > > How on earth are you going to effect mutual exclusion using reference > counting? > perhaps I was not clear enough. That was a rough idea how to handle the whole thing, not just cpm_cr_cmd. This cpm command is a corner case, but there can be other actions that may confuse CPM being triggered simultaneously or overlapping. This is part of much bigger problem, and I was intended to have a look what people think about that. -- Sincerely, Vitaly _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
