Hi Pavel,
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 08:33:39 Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2009-06-25 16:01:24, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > Comment from Venkatesh:
> > ...
> > This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
> > think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
> >
> > -> rip it out.
> >
> > CC: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx>
>
> > static struct dbs_tuners {
> > @@ -236,10 +222,7 @@ static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
> > if (ret != 1 || input > MAX_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR || input < 1)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
> > dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_down_factor = input;
> > - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> > -
>
> You'd need to make s_down_factor atomic_t for this to work....
Can you provide a userspace scenario (or tell which kind of event must
happen in between), that this would cause problems, please.
Thanks,
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
