Re: [PATCH 09/18] frv: switch do_timer() to xtime_update()

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Torben Hohn wrote:

> this code looks like its protecting __set_LEDS() with this lock also.
> i dont think thats necessary.

This changelog is horrible. 

This code does not look like protecting the __set_LEDS() call with the
xtime_lock. The call happens to be inside the xtime_lock held region.

Now instead of bringing up a weak argument "I dont think ..." you
should provide a proper analysis why it's safe to move that code out.

It's pretty simple:

No other call site of __set_LEDS() is protected by xtime_lock, so
xtime_lock does not protect anything related to __set_LEDS(). It's
just inside the xtime_lock region for no good reason at all.

Please be more careful when writing change logs, so a reviewer can
understand the reasoning behind your change easily.

Also all arch/* patches are missing a "Cc: arch-maintainer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx".

>  {
> @@ -61,10 +61,11 @@ static irqreturn_t timer_interrupt(int irq, void *dummy)
>  	 * CPU. We need to avoid to SMP race with it. NOTE: we don't need
>  	 * the irq version of write_lock because as just said we have irq
>  	 * locally disabled. -arca
> +	 *
> +	 * xtime_update takes the writelock.

  Errm. xtime_update write locks xtime_lock. Please be careful with comments.

Thanks,

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