On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Are you suggesting that the hardware lock wouldn't mind being taken > twice by the AP side? If it is the case, then indeed the software mutex > is still needed to prevent it from happening. > > That being said... I guess that avoiding a priority inversion is a good > enough reason to always take the rt_mutex, regardless of the hardware > lock implementation. > > So, this patch is > > Acked-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I guess it makes more sense for me to let Ben apply it, as the other > two patches in the series are for him too. This will avoid a dependency > between our trees. Only change I'd suggest is passing adapter to the hardware_lock/unlock methods. Having no arguments what so ever in generic code for this kind of stuff looks rather strange and limiting. -- 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
