27 Sep
2013
27 Sep
'13
12:07 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:48:09PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:
In what way might these things conflict? What are the clashes you are concerned about?
That lock serves the purpose of making sure that si476x_core_send_command, calls to which all the rest of the functions boil down to, is not executed in parallel to itself. So I am concerned that with the lock acquisition removal it would be possible to make that condition happen.
OK, so if it's purely about send_command() then why is the locking not being done in that function? Surely the most obvious and robust place to protect the function is within the function itself?