On Friday 04 November 2011 01:56:04 Huang Ying wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 00:31 +0800, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:59:08 PM Myron Stowe wrote: > > > Late last year I submitted a patch series that re-factored some existing > > > work that Huang Ying introduced adding support for accessing ACPI > > > generic registers backed by Memory Mapped I/O (MMIO) while within > > > interrupt context: > > > Huang Ying's commit 15651291a2f8c11e7e6a42d8bfde7a213ff13262, > > > My series: http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=128769263327206&w=2. > > > > Ying: What is your opinion about this patchset? > > I am OK with the patchset. Great, thanks. > We just need some testing. Hm, that's what release candidates (-rcX) are for. > > One major change seem to be to use a mutex instead of a spinlock > > which looks like a fix as the pre-mapping should never happen in > > irq context. > > Sorry, where is the mutex? you used a spinlock in atomicio.c: static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(acpi_iomaps_lock); in osl.c a mutex is used: static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_ioremap_lock); > > I expect the rest is more or less the same, but double checking > > by someone who is more involved in these code paths would be > > great. Thomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
