Hi Jon,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 16:07:39 -0700
> Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > I'm missing something here.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The analysis above is required to show that the API contract asserted by
>> the proposed change to the documentation is currently true in the code,
>> which is what I care about.
>
> Yes, but the analysis says nothing about what uart_break_ctl() itself
> might do, so by itself, it provides no guarantee for break_ctl(). That
> was my sticking point since somebody clearly put that line in there for a
> reason.
>
> Looking at the code, it's pretty obvious that uart_break_ctl() isn't
> acquiring any spinlocks. The documentation line in question has been
> there, unchanged, since the beginning of the Git era. The patch is
> obviously fine, and I've applied it, but I did tweak the changelog some.
Sorry, this indeed needed more clarification.
Thanks for fixing it up!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
