Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
       Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] usb_serial: Kill port mutex
In-Reply-To: <200910081543.01933.oliver@neukum.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0910081054300.2986-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1361
Lines: 33

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2009 23:34:12 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > I'm losing track of the original point of this thread. ?IIRC, the
> > problem is how the resume method should know whether or not to submit
> > the receive URB(s). ?It can't afford to acquire the port mutex because
> > it might be called by open or close, at which time the mutex is already
> > held.
> >
> > Other schemes could work, but to me it seems simplest to rely on a flag
> > protected by a spinlock. ?The flag would mean "URBs are supposed to be
> > queued unless we are suspended". ?It would be set by open and
> > unthrottle, and cleared by close and throttle.
> 
> 1. Why a spinlock?

Because the amount of work involved seems too small for a mutex.  But 
you could use a mutex if you wanted, since everything occurs in process 
context.

> 2. Can we get by with only one flag?

If all you want to do is answer a single question ("Should URBs be 
submitted") then a single flag should be all you need.  Why, do you 
think more information will be necessary?  You can always add more.

Alan Stern

--
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/