On 03/04/14 13:13, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:00:53PM +0300, Kristina Martšenko wrote: >> On 03/04/14 11:32, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 01:45:09AM +0200, Kristina Martšenko wrote: >>>> Use a mutex instead of a spinlock in goldfish_nand.c, as suggested by >>>> the TODO list. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kristina Martšenko <kristina.martsenko@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Have you tested this change? >> >> Nope, just compile-tested. After a day of trying to get the emulator to >> work I finally gave up and decided that it looked okay enough... I >> should have mentioned under the patch description that it wasn't tested, >> sorry. > > It's not a wrong thing to submit patches that you can't test, but in > this case the irq save/restores make me nervous. I can't see that they > served any purpose and it's certainly not unheard of for staging code to > do pointless things for unexplainable reasons. But on the other hand, I > would feel a lot more comfortable if this change were tested or if there > were more comments about how the change is safe. I'm not sure I understand. A mutex doesn't disable interrupts, so the cpu irq flags should be the same after the mutex-protected code as they were before. I.e. it would have the same effect as the save/restore. Or am I missing something? In any case I can take another shot at getting the Android emulator to work so that I can test this. (Probably not anytime soon though.) Kristina _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
