Jaehoon / James On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> In this case it'd only be a space and code complexity thing I think. I >> suppose in some cases the benefit of finer-grained locking is probably >> pretty marginal, but there's a good case for it here. It might be >> worth renaming the lock to irq_lock or something like that so it's >> clear it doesn't have to protect only for INTMASK in the future - up >> to you. > It seems good that use the irq_lock than intmask_lock. (It's just naming) Done in v2. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
