On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 16:07:39 -0700 Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm missing something here. > > Yes. > > The analysis above is required to show that the API contract asserted by > the proposed change to the documentation is currently true in the code, > which is what I care about. Yes, but the analysis says nothing about what uart_break_ctl() itself might do, so by itself, it provides no guarantee for break_ctl(). That was my sticking point since somebody clearly put that line in there for a reason. Looking at the code, it's pretty obvious that uart_break_ctl() isn't acquiring any spinlocks. The documentation line in question has been there, unchanged, since the beginning of the Git era. The patch is obviously fine, and I've applied it, but I did tweak the changelog some. Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
