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

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:38:59PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?

As it's an arm-specific thing, it should probably go through Russell's
tree.

thanks,

greg k-h