[PATCH v4 1/4] drivers: hwspinlock: add framework

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:20:13 +0200 Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad at wizery.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > It's a little irritating having two hwspinlock.h's.
> > hwspinlock_internal.h wold be a conventional approach. __But it's not a
> > big deal.
> ...
> 
> >> +/**
> >> + * __hwspin_lock_timeout() - lock an hwspinlock with timeout limit
> >> + * @hwlock: the hwspinlock to be locked
> >> + * @timeout: timeout value in jiffies
> >
> > hm, why in jiffies?
> >
> > The problem here is that lazy programmers will use
> >
> > __ __ __ __hwspin_lock_timeout(lock, 10, ...)
> >
> > and their code will work happily with HZ=100 but will explode with HZ=1000.
> >
> > IOW, this interface *requires* that all callers perform a
> > seconds-to-jiffies conversion before calling hwspin_lock_timeout(). __So
> > why not reduce their effort and their ability to make mistakes by
> > defining the API to take seconds?
> 
> I considered that, but then decided to use jiffies in order to be
> consistent with wait_event_timeout/schedule_timeout (although I don't
> return the remaining jiffies in case the lock is taken before the
> timeout elapses), and also to allow user-selected granularity.
> 
> But I do kind of like the idea of not using jiffies. We can probably
> even move to msecs, since anyway this is an error condition, and
> people who needs a quick check should just use the trylock() version.
> 
> I'll do a quick respin of the patches with that and the
> hwspinlock_internal.h comment above.

OK..

The patch series looks OK to me.  But there isn't a lot of point in me
putting them into my tree.  Maybe Tony or Russell or Greg can grab them
if they like the look of it all?