18 Mar
2014
18 Mar
'14
11:44 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 03/18/2014 11:33 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Right. OTOH, it's still better than papering over with GFP_ATOMIC, I think. We can just give a proper note in the function description, for example.
We should still hold the log over the _regmap_write portion of regmap_register_patch(), but I think we should otherwise be fine if we make it a API requirement that the caller needs to make sure that regmap_register_patch() is not called concurrently to itself or to regcache_sync().
Yes, it's just the (re)alloc I was talking about there.