On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 08:46:13AM -0400, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Roedel, Joerg <Joerg.Roedel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Can this be easily converted to a spin_lock? > > > > Sure, thanks for reviewing. > > Taking a second look, I don't think it's necessary - the mutex isn't > used to protect the page table. The page table is protected by a spin > lock, so map/unmap operations can be called from an atomic context. > > The mutex is only part of the attach/deattach operations, which are > already used today in process context, so I guess it's safe. Yes, it should be safe in your context. But the iommu-api is generic and I would prefer that all functions it provides can be called from any context. Or is the time required for attaching/detaching too long so that it makes sense to put secondary threads to sleep? Joerg -- AMD Operating System Research Center Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24 85609 Dornach General Managers: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd Registration: Dornach, Landkr. Muenchen; Registerger. Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
