On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 10:24 +0800, Thomas Renninger wrote: > 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); Thanks. I think mutex is OK here because it will not be used in IRQ/NMI handler. Best Regards, Huang Ying -- 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
