> Thank you for your sending the revised patches, it looks better than the > previous one. However, I have an additional request. Allright, patch v3 it is. > [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-revert Should have known git has something like that, how handy! > $ git revert -s b5b519965c4c Yes, 5b5 can be removed via revert, but what is the difference in effect? Just time saving? > $ git revert -s 7ba5ca32fe6e This one I'd like to ask you about: The original inline comment in amdtp-stream.c amdtp_domain_stream_pcm_pointer() ``` // This function is called in software IRQ context of // period_work or process context. // // When the software IRQ context was scheduled by software IRQ // context of IT contexts, queued packets were already handled. // Therefore, no need to flush the queue in buffer furthermore. // // When the process context reach here, some packets will be // already queued in the buffer. These packets should be handled // immediately to keep better granularity of PCM pointer. // // Later, the process context will sometimes schedules software // IRQ context of the period_work. Then, no need to flush the // queue by the same reason as described in the above ``` (let's call the above v1) was replaced with ``` // In software IRQ context, the call causes dead-lock to disable the tasklet // synchronously. ``` on occasion of 7ba5ca32fe6e (let's call this v2). I sought to replace it with ``` // use wq to prevent deadlock between process context spin_lock // of snd_pcm_stream_lock_irq() in snd_pcm_status64() and // softIRQ context spin_lock of snd_pcm_stream_lock_irqsave() // in snd_pcm_period_elapsed() ``` to prevent this issue from occurring again (let's call this v3). Should I include v1, v3 or a combination of v1 and v3 in my next patch? > Just for safe, it is preferable to execute 'scripts/checkpatch.pl' in > kernel tree to check the patchset generated by send-email subcommand[3]. Absolutely should have done so, sorry. Thank you for your patience and guidance, Edmund Raile.
