On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:53:31PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote: > With the revert, we are back to the bit ops. Even if it works, Mark's > original comment on the bit ops still stands I think. This is why I'm > proposing patch 2 but I don't really mind if it is applied or not. Yeah, it's not *required* but the atomic operations have lots of spiky edges so a simpler locking construct would have less chance of running into trouble later when someone's updating the code.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
