> >Would it not be lighter to use atomic bit ops ? > > Do you mean in order to remove rx_mutex? > > mutex_lock(&info->rx_mutex); > atomic_set(info->irq_state ,1); > mutex_unlock(&info->rx_mutex); > > looks a bit strange. I still need the rx_mutex to protect irq_state while reading i2c. > > mutex_lock(&info->rx_mutex); > ret = i2c_master_recv(client, info->buf, info->buflen); > info->irq_state = 0; > mutex_unlock(&info->rx_mutex); > I was thinking clear_bit/test_and_set_bit rather than atomic_t operations. ie in the IRQ clear_bit(0, &info->irq_state); in the main path if (test_and_set_bit(0, &info->state)) i2c_master_recv(...) but if the mutex is needed anyway it doesn't help make the code saner. -- 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
