Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 06/05/2014 11:10 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> I did not do this because I figure we will want ethtool support w/out >>> forcing debugfs to be enabled someday soon. >> >> When we add ethtool support, it's easy to move these back. And then we >> need to move the code out from debug.c anyway. > > Well, it seems like needless churn and makes it harder to follow > 'git blame' when you move big chunks around. I don't care about 'git blame', the actual code is far more important to me. If git blame is so important, someone else can improve 'git blame' to detect moving code chunks. > We would not have to move the code out of debug.c, but if you do want > it moved, lets pick that place now and just put it there to begin > with. Code in debug.c should have the data it owns in struct ath10k_debug. >>> I'm a bit leery of adding spin-locks in the dump routine just for >>> this, but I can add and use a new spin-lock if you prefer. >> >> Why a new spinlock? I didn't review the locking requirements, but I >> would first check ar->data_lock can be used. > > I think it has to be a spin-lock because the crash dump is gathered > in the irq handler, so I can't use a mutex as far as I know... > > I'll work on adding such a lock today. I asked why add a _new_ spinlock as ar->data_lock is already a spinlock. -- Kalle Valo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
