27 Aug
2013
27 Aug
'13
1:03 p.m.
At Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:18:59 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:31:33PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:10:38 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
to prevent racy claculations as multiple threads can invoke and update values
Why a new lock? Can't it be the same lock?
Pointer query and updates IMO should be independent of the trigger ops. I dont see a reason why we should blcok pointers while we are pausing...
What happens if the trigger or reset is called during your taking the timestamp?
Takashi