On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
quoted text
> > > But these ones
> > > are raw locks rather than normal locks probably because that
> > > they are trivially an innermost and correct lock.
> >
> > As in the $SUBJECT case, I'd say.
> >
> > Although another point is related to "trivial":  the data
> > is being protected through an operation too trivial to be
> > worth paying for any of that priority logic.
> 
> A driver shouldn't get to decide that, IMO.

Not that I was talking about driver code...


quoted text
> And if there is 
> some policy in the -rt tree allowing these decisions, then
> it's exactly the kind of thing we don't want upsream.

Making raw spinlocks available allows those decisions...

On the other hand, I can't see things working sanely
without them being available.  The problem seems to be
the usual one that crops up whenever anyone tries to
create a "bright line" decision algorithm in areas that
need flexibility.  Any "bright line" rule will lead to
wrong results.

- Dave

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/