|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw-AT-sisk.pl> |
|| ||Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33) |
|| ||Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:35:27 -0800 (PST)|
|| ||Alan Stern <stern-AT-rowland.harvard.edu>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang-AT-intel.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm-AT-lists.linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The wait queue plus the op_complete flag combo plays the role of the locking
> in the Linus' picture
Please just use the lock. Don't make up your own locking crap. Really.
Your patch is horrible. Exactly because your locking is horribly
mis-designed. You can't say things are complete from an interrupt, for
example, since you made it some random bitfield, which has unknown
characteristics (ie non-atomic read-modify-write etc).
The fact is, any time anybody makes up a new locking mechanism, THEY
ALWAYS GET IT WRONG. Don't do it.
I suggested using the rwsem locking for a good reason. It made sense. It
was simpler. Just do it that way, stop making up crap.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)