Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:44744 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753965Ab0CQNAp (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:00:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:55:13 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Johannes Berg Cc: Senthil Balasubramanian , Senthilkumar Balasubramanian , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Jiri Slaby , "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: convert reg_regdb_search_lock to mutex Message-ID: <20100317125513.GA2990@tuxdriver.com> References: <4B9F86E9.2030702@gmail.com> <1268768940-5654-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> <20100316100337.GA1732@senthil-lnx.users.atheros.com> <20100317002416.GA2095@tuxdriver.com> <20100316122449.GA17826@senthil-lnx.users.atheros.com> <20100317025656.GA9058@tuxdriver.com> <1268796275.7068.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1268796275.7068.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 08:24:35PM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 22:56 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 05:54:50PM +0530, Senthil Balasubramanian wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:54:16AM +0530, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:33:38PM +0530, Senthil Balasubramanian wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:19:00AM +0530, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > > > Stanse discovered that kmalloc can be called with GFP_KERNEL while > > > > > This commit log is confusing. It Should be "Stanse discovered kmalloc > > > > > was called with GFP_KERNEL". Obviously kmalloc with GFP_KERNEL shouldn't > > > > > be used while holding a spinlock. > > > > > > holding this spinlock. It can be a mutex instead. > > > > > > > > Not half so confusing as your criticism... :-) > > > sorry! if my mail wasn't proper. I didn't meant to blame/criticize. > > > I was confused when I read the commit log and so I replied. > > > > > > > > Are you objecting to "can be" instead of "was"? > > > I am not objecting anything... > > > > Criticism is fine -- I just don't understand what you were saying or > > what you think I should have said in the commit log. > > English at work ... let me guess: > > For John: "can" == "it could happen that" > For Senthil: "can" == "may" > > (when really you may NOT do GFP_KERNEL allocations in atomic context) Ah, that seems like a plausible explanation for the confusion. Bitte mein herr! John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.