On Saturday 26 September 2015 11:40:00 Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25 September 2015 at 15:19, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So if you allow something like debugfs to update your structure, how > > do you make sure there is the proper locking? > > Not really sure at all.. Isn't there some debugfs locking that will > jump in, to avoid updation of fields to the same device? No, if you need any locking to access variable, you cannot use the simple debugfs helpers but have to provide your own functions. > >> Anyway, that problem isn't here for sure as its between two > >> unsigned-longs. So, should I just move it to bool and resend ? > > > > I guess it might be more convenient to fold this into the other patch, > > because we seem to be splitting hairs here. > > I can and that's what I did. But then Arnd asked me to separate it > out. I can fold it back if that's what you want. It still makes sense to keep it separate I think, the patch is clearly different from the other parts. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
