Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:12:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] clk: allow reentrant calls into the clk framework
In-Reply-To: <20130327150634.4014.64797@quantum>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1303271811020.22263@ionos>
References: <1364368183-24420-1-git-send-email-mturquette@linaro.org> <1824016.8AdaQMMrrR@avalon> <20130327150634.4014.64797@quantum>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 735
Lines: 21

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Laurent Pinchart (2013-03-27 02:08:15)
> > I wonder if it would make sense to abstract these operations in a generic 
> > recursive mutex. Given that it would delay this patch past v3.10 I won't push 
> > for that.
> > 
> 
> Having a nice implementation of recursive mutexes would have saved me
> some time.

If you encapsulate stuff nicely like I suggested, then switching to a
generic version later on is a nobrainer.
 
Thanks,

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