From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com (mail-la0-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CC56B0254 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by laer8 with SMTP id r8so7013127lae.2 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl. [79.96.170.134]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id p4si5977809lbw.11.2015.09.27.06.42.30 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock' Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:10:48 +0200 Message-ID: <1578470.DLzaBp4j3T@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <1540878.9slRi6Q7xb@wuerfel> References: <1540878.9slRi6Q7xb@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS (WIRELESS)" , "moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM..." , "open list:TARGET SUBSYSTEM" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "open list:ULTRA-WIDEBAND (UWB) SUBSYSTEM:" , QCA ath9k Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Intel Linux Wireless , Linux ACPI , "open list:AMD IOMMU (AMD-VI)" , "open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Johannes Berg , Linux Memory Management List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "open list:EDAC-CORE" On Saturday, September 26, 2015 09:33:56 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 26 September 2015 11:40:00 Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 25 September 2015 at 15:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > So if you allow something like debugfs to update your structure, how > > > do you make sure there is the proper locking? > > > > Not really sure at all.. Isn't there some debugfs locking that will > > jump in, to avoid updation of fields to the same device? > > No, if you need any locking to access variable, you cannot use the > simple debugfs helpers but have to provide your own functions. > > > >> Anyway, that problem isn't here for sure as its between two > > >> unsigned-longs. So, should I just move it to bool and resend ? > > > > > > I guess it might be more convenient to fold this into the other patch, > > > because we seem to be splitting hairs here. > > > > I can and that's what I did. But then Arnd asked me to separate it > > out. I can fold it back if that's what you want. > > It still makes sense to keep it separate I think, the patch is clearly > different from the other parts. I just don't see much point in going from unsigned long to u32 and then from 32 to bool if we can go directly to bool in one go. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org