RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-10 Thread Sell, Timothy C
> > > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:t...@linutronix.de] > > > > > > > > I think I asked this before, but I might have missed the answer. > > > > > > > > Why is this a rw_sempahore? It's never taken with down_read and > > looking > > > > at the usage sites it's simply a mutex, right? > > > > > >

RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-10 Thread Sell, Timothy C
> > > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:t...@linutronix.de] > > > > > > > > I think I asked this before, but I might have missed the answer. > > > > > > > > Why is this a rw_sempahore? It's never taken with down_read and > > looking > > > > at the usage sites it's simply a mutex, right? > > > > > >

RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-09 Thread Sell, Timothy C
..@linuxdriverproject.org; *S-Par- > Maintainer; Kershner, David A > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove > unnecessary locking > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Sell, Timothy C wrote: > > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:t...@linutronix.de] > > > >

RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-09 Thread Sell, Timothy C
..@linuxdriverproject.org; *S-Par- > Maintainer; Kershner, David A > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove > unnecessary locking > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Sell, Timothy C wrote: > > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:t...@linutronix.de] > > > >

RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-09 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Sell, Timothy C wrote: > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:t...@linutronix.de] > > > > I think I asked this before, but I might have missed the answer. > > > > Why is this a rw_sempahore? It's never taken with down_read and looking > > at the usage sites it's simply a mutex,

RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-09 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Sell, Timothy C wrote: > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:t...@linutronix.de] > > > > I think I asked this before, but I might have missed the answer. > > > > Why is this a rw_sempahore? It's never taken with down_read and looking > > at the usage sites it's simply a mutex,

RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-09 Thread Sell, Timothy C
@vger.kernel.org; driverdev- > de...@linuxdriverproject.org; *S-Par-Maintainer > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove > unnecessary locking > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, David Kershner wrote: > > + /* > > +* If we're not paused, really enable interrupts

RE: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-09 Thread Sell, Timothy C
@vger.kernel.org; driverdev- > de...@linuxdriverproject.org; *S-Par-Maintainer > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove > unnecessary locking > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, David Kershner wrote: > > + /* > > +* If we're not paused, really enable interrupts

Re: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-09 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, David Kershner wrote: > + /* > + * If we're not paused, really enable interrupts. > + * Regardless of whether we are paused, set a flag indicating > + * interrupts should be enabled so when we resume, interrupts > + * will really be enabled. > + */

Re: [PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-09 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, David Kershner wrote: > + /* > + * If we're not paused, really enable interrupts. > + * Regardless of whether we are paused, set a flag indicating > + * interrupts should be enabled so when we resume, interrupts > + * will really be enabled. > + */

[PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-08 Thread David Kershner
From: Tim Sell Locking in the _interrupt() function is NOT necessary so long as we ensure that interrupts have been stopped whenever we need to pause or resume the device, which we now do. While a device is paused, we ensure that interrupts stay disabled, i.e. that the

[PATCH v4 09/29] staging: unisys: visorinput: remove unnecessary locking

2016-06-08 Thread David Kershner
From: Tim Sell Locking in the _interrupt() function is NOT necessary so long as we ensure that interrupts have been stopped whenever we need to pause or resume the device, which we now do. While a device is paused, we ensure that interrupts stay disabled, i.e. that the _interrupt() function