| To: | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] serial: Initialize spinlocks in 8250 and don't clobber them. |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> |
| Date: | Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:38:33 +0100 |
| Cc: | David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Tomaso.Paoletti@caviumnetworks.com |
| In-reply-to: | <20081020141750.d0610586.akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
| Organization: | Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <48F51114.2010105@caviumnetworks.com> <20081020141750.d0610586.akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
> But yes, copying a spinlock by value is quite wrong. Perhaps we could > retain the struct assigment and then run spin_lock_init() to get the > spinlock into a sane state? Kind of irrelevant now however, the split of patches that caused the original bug is over and the NR_IRQ removal patch half of it hit Linus tree. Alan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] Alchemy: wire up SD controller on DB/PB1200 boards., Manuel Lauss |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] serial: Initialize spinlocks in 8250 and don't clobber them., David Daney |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] serial: Initialize spinlocks in 8250 and don't clobber them., David Daney |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] serial: Initialize spinlocks in 8250 and don't clobber them., David Daney |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |