On 8 August 2015 at 01:53, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 05:22:47PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> On 7 August 2015 at 17:07, Peter Chen <Peter.Chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> /**
>> >> >> * struct usb_udc - describes one usb device controller @@ -127,12
>> >> >> +128,45 @@ void usb_gadget_giveback_request(struct usb_ep *ep, }
>> >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_gadget_giveback_request);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +int usb_gadget_register_notify(struct usb_gadget *gadget,
>> >> >> + struct notifier_block *nb) {
>> >> >> + unsigned long flags;
>> >> >> + int ret;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&gadget->lock, flags);
>> >> >
>> >> > I find you use so many spin_lock_irqsave, any reasons for that?
>> >> > Why mutex_lock can't be used?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The spin_lock_irqsave() can make it as a atomic notifier, that can make sure the
>> >> gadget state event can be quickly reported to the user who register a notifier
>> >> on the gadget device. Is it OK?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think it is a good reason, spin_lock_irqsave is usually used for protecting
>> > data which is accessed at atomic environment.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, we want the notify process is a atomic environment which do not
>> want to be interrupted by irq or other things to make the notice can
>> be quickly reported to the user.
>
> No, this is a "slow" event, you don't need to notify anyone under atomic
> context, that's crazy.
>
>> Also i think the notify process is less cost, thus i use the spinlock. Thanks.
>
> No, use a mutex please, that's the safe thing. This is not
> time-critical code at all.
>
OK, Thanks for your comments and will fix the lock thing.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
