On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 03/18/2014 11:33 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > >Right. OTOH, it's still better than papering over with GFP_ATOMIC, I > >think. We can just give a proper note in the function description, > >for example. > We should still hold the log over the _regmap_write portion of > regmap_register_patch(), but I think we should otherwise be fine if we make > it a API requirement that the caller needs to make sure that > regmap_register_patch() is not called concurrently to itself or to > regcache_sync(). Yes, it's just the (re)alloc I was talking about there.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
