> From: Ky Srinivasan [mailto:ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx] > You would need to protect the increment, if interrupts are going to > come in on any cpu and update the counter. While in your current > implementation interrupts are only delivered on cpu0, it is still > probably good to deal with the more general case and protect the > counter. > > On a slightly different note, why don't you make the synchronization > more explicit than what you currently have: Rather than polling the > variable in a loop, why don't you put that context to sleep and the > interrupt context that updates the count would be responsible for > issuing the wakeup when the conditions are appropriate - when all > channels are initialized. Thank you for the suggestion. I will keep the counter atomic to handle more general case potentially. To ensure channels are ready before vmbus_init() returns, I used an event waiting mechanism instead of polling the variable periodically. A modified patch will be submitted soon. Thanks, - Haiyang _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
