On 2017-06-03 12:31, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 07:26:27PM +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:51:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> From: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> Philipp found problems in v14 with using a mutex for locking that was >>> the outcome of the review for v13, so I'm now using a semaphore instead >>> of the rwsem that was in v13. That at least got rid of the scary call >>> to downgrade_write. However, I'm still unsure about what you actually >>> meant with your comment about lack of sparse markings [1]. I did add >>> __must_check to the funcs that selects the mux, but I've got this >>> feeling that this is not what you meant? >> >> I thought there was a way to mark a function as requiring a lock be held >> when it is being called. Does sparse not support that anymore? > > Anyway, not a big deal. I still worry about the calls blocking when > people are not expecting them to, but it is just the nature of th api I > guess. Yeah, first come first serve. I don't know what else I can do, except maybe follow up with a timed version of mux_control_select()... > All now queued up, nice work, thanks for sticking with this. *big sigh of relief* I was getting pretty fed up with the series to be honest :-), so thanks a bunch for taking it! Cheers, peda -- 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
