On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:11:30PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Richard Cochran

quoted

+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(clocks_lock); /* protects 'clocks' */

Doesn't appear that clocks is manipulated at atomic context.  Mutex instead?

...

If the spinlock is changed to a mutex that is held for the entire
function call, then the logic here can be simpler.

Grant,

I am working on another go at this patch series. Stupid question:

The caller of ptp_clock_register(), which takes the clocks_lock, is
always a module_init() function. Is this always a safe context in
which to call mutex_lock?

Thanks,

Richard