On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2016-11-08 22:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > I don't think you need extra race handling with that, but I might be wrong > > as usual. > > There's obviously no way to determine which of the timeout or the > interrupt that happens first without some race handling, so I don't > know what you mean? If the timeout happens first, there is also a > need to handle late hits from the irq that might come in during the > preparation for the next step in the binary search. It gets messy > quickly compared to the simplicity of the current implementation. Gah, forgot about that timeout thingy. Fair enough. Feel free to add an Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
