}
}
--
> -Original Message-
> From: Ohad Ben-Cohen [mailto:o...@wizery.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:56 PM
> To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi Doyu; Ohad Ben-Cohen
> Subject: [PATCH 1/4] omap: mailbox cleanup: conve
gt;> free_irq(mbox->irq, mbox);
>>
>> if (likely(mbox->ops->shutdown)) {
>> - write_lock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_lock(&mboxes_lock);
>> if (mbox_configured > 0)
>>
mbox_configured--;
> if (!mbox_configured)
> mbox->ops->shutdown(mbox);
> - write_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
> }
> }
>
> --
>
>
>
&
Hi Hiroshi,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> From: ext Ohad Ben-Cohen
> Subject: [PATCH 1/4] omap: mailbox cleanup: convert rwlocks to spinlock
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:56:19 +0200
>
>> rwlocks are slower and have potential starva
Hi Ohad,
From: ext Ohad Ben-Cohen
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] omap: mailbox cleanup: convert rwlocks to spinlock
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:56:19 +0200
> rwlocks are slower and have potential starvation issues so spinlocks are
> generally preferred
Would it be possible to explain the above a bi
rwlocks are slower and have potential starvation issues so spinlocks are
generally preferred
Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen
---
arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c | 20 ++--
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c b/arch/arm/plat-o
