On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:08:55 +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > Hi Jean, > > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:49 +0200, ext Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Can you please define "get a kick"? I don't know anything about > > rt_mutex. > > > > Sorry for using a vague metaphor. Documentation/rt-mutex.txt explains it > as: > > "A low priority owner of a rt-mutex inherits the priority of a higher > priority waiter until the rt-mutex is released. If the temporarily > boosted owner blocks on a rt-mutex itself it propagates the priority > boosting to the owner of the other rt_mutex it gets blocked on. The > priority boosting is immediately removed once the rt_mutex has been > unlocked." > > You might want to also take a look at Documentation/rt-mutex-design.txt Thanks for the clarification. It all makes a lot of sense. I'll give your patch a try, although I don't use I2C for anything time-critical so I doubt it makes a difference for me. But now I am curious, why don't we use rt_mutex instead of regular mutex all around the place? -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
