Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932370AbWHHNnm (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:43:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932570AbWHHNnm (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:43:42 -0400 Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]:61795 "EHLO mtagate2.uk.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932370AbWHHNnl (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:43:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:43:37 +0300 From: Muli Ben-Yehuda To: Shem Multinymous Cc: Pavel Machek , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink , Robert Love , Jean Delvare , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hdaps-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] hdaps: Correct readout and remove nonsensical attributes Message-ID: <20060808134337.GF5497@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> References: <11548492171301-git-send-email-multinymous@gmail.com> <11548492543835-git-send-email-multinymous@gmail.com> <20060807140721.GH4032@ucw.cz> <41840b750608070930p59a250a4l99c07260229dda8e@mail.gmail.com> <20060807182047.GC26224@atjola.homenet> <20060808122234.GD5497@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> <20060808125652.GA5284@ucw.cz> <20060808131724.GE5497@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> <41840b750608080635j552829a3g4971316ff2d264ad@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41840b750608080635j552829a3g4971316ff2d264ad@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1143 Lines: 34 On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:35:23PM +0300, Shem Multinymous wrote: > Hi Muli, > > On 8/8/06, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > >> > > ret = thinkpad_ec_lock(); > >> > > if (ret) > >> > > return ret; > > >Ugh, I missed that - it's called _lock(), but it's actually > >down_interruptible(). > > Why is that confusing? lock() sounds like spin_lock() to me, and spin_lock() can't fail. Idiomatic code is easier for my brain to parse. > >Why not just get rid of the wrapper and call > >down_interruptible() directly? That makes it obvious what's going on. > > We may end up needing to lock away other subsystems (ACPI?) that > touch the same ports. Apparently not an issue right now, but could > change with new firmware. (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/7/147) When (if) it becomes necessary to lock away other subsystems, the wrapper can be easily reintroduced. Cheers, Muli - 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/