On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 11:35:35AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Accesses to 'minors' are guarded by the 'device_list_lock' mutex. So, it is
> safe to use the non-atomic version of (set|clear)_bit() in the
> corresponding sections.
Is it a problem to use the atomic version?
> if (status == 0) {
> - set_bit(minor, minors);
> + __set_bit(minor, minors);
> list_add(&spidev->device_entry, &device_list);
The __ usually means something is the more complicated and less
preferred API.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
