On 03/29/2010 11:39 AM, Alan Cox wrote: >> What I *really* object to with this patch is that it inherently assumes >> that there is only one multiplexed resource in the entire system... but >> of course nowhere enforces that. > > The patch does nothing of the sort. Not unless there is a bug I am not > seeing anyway. It does assume nobody tries to grab pairs of such > resources as it doesn't do deadlock avoidance. > > It's now a shared resource patch however, its a multiplexor patch and > that is precisely why it is called MUX not SHARED or OVERLAY > Alan Sorry, I missed the "continue", which of course handles the situation I was worried about. The shared wait queue is a bit inelegant, but if it turns out to be a bottleneck in real life then we either have bigger problems or it can be addressed at that time. -hpa _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
