From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9AAC43603 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:45:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28762464D for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="A/uquqn7" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729237AbfLEJpq (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Dec 2019 04:45:46 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com ([209.85.128.66]:52396 "EHLO mail-wm1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728707AbfLEJpn (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Dec 2019 04:45:43 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id p9so2881241wmc.2 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:45:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IAHAPcfNyYPZewTfBhsG7qwba+YQCk2356CRIqll3K8=; b=A/uquqn7fzUQpqmYGO+PEXKF1NoPRxYMZ0y2sW+aDKN2NiVkv7K16K/R63JFJt3fdo PAqzhlml/ixjVKxynF0FGEbQBpjyn/orMffUA7RtohOKEsDFu0I2e/m4o3RSxCMcHRPl WxFBf9N9tp3la/OS19JL1VNiHJKI3y4h+yBPMpEsRQkJuXKF10bWuSYlx8+xHkw3mGwu CgsV630jVK1HXVfmmOrNxjhvEIF/6CNZuTECWJ6ux4arJzFKOk9C+ztBFKrFZ5gFiQkG qHjrP2okiVzBNHwpyOOJH+7tZvfC46DiMArQ1geFD4nelFOWtjAoXRxpDUIjaPrhLngI kI9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IAHAPcfNyYPZewTfBhsG7qwba+YQCk2356CRIqll3K8=; b=Mjw//Wz0a4Gr0BPMk8uVtx/2tud0sYvHCko4j0HBSgoomPg6QzBScdUK2/e2cqJVYT nq/iqEKRhInevEdulPMc9ELE8NDTqtzRQZUdcH5Gc0uH64TR+JgpnNPE5Fe3TevOWv5m 3hxiQaIL+AZjYjKNhj/nzmrGPxAxRRuXLs5fwOLXGhLDtm4sbjNOySy5Urx27FbZfuCu hJyEfy1PXPBqumHCVXjTyfvSexrqBqoJ1JCOXLrNuqTxFTJUMaMFBry3ozuAkn5jU727 APwRsKOPxb2+HhMUduulElE4rCEIfMmiXFl2nLA6MD8MFwiWjgU70plqPQvsAnxRCfug Cbzg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXF0rzgzJxpLNwiEA1RHVy5d/QWgfXGlWRxZh1FdiGCDhp1mzY1 kTBr38YQMQVpha3H1IWwnGagMiKlbHjIB6VLKQw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwcYRc0fuaLRFVleqfgSmiyl3I2fPNK6AKFa5K8/dfNSEFtx+axt8WpebIoZlIVYXmSl6OmkUOLn9wJyytUYes= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4944:: with SMTP id w65mr4047032wma.39.1575539141872; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:45:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191128223802.18228-1-michael@walle.cc> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Baluta Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:45:30 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_sai: add IRQF_SHARED To: Michael Walle Cc: Linux-ALSA , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Timur Tabi , Nicolin Chen , Xiubo Li , Fabio Estevam , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:18 AM Michael Walle wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > Am 2019-12-05 09:43, schrieb Daniel Baluta: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:40 AM Michael Walle > > wrote: > >> > >> The LS1028A SoC uses the same interrupt line for adjacent SAIs. Use > >> IRQF_SHARED to be able to use these SAIs simultaneously. > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for the patch. We have a similar change inside our internal tree > > (it is on my long TODO list to upstream :D). > > > > We add the shared flag conditionally on a dts property. > > > > Do you think it is a good idea to always add shared flag? I'm thinking > > on SAI IP integrations where the interrupt is edge triggered. > > Mhh, I don't really get the point to make the flag conditionally. If > there is only one user, the flag won't hurt, correct? > > If there are two users, we need the flag anyway. > > > AFAIK edge triggered interrupts do not get along very well > > with sharing an interrupt line. > > So in that case you shouldn't use shared edge triggered interrupts in > the > SoC in the first place, I guess. I think you make a good point. I was thinking that it would hurt the single user case. But it is fine. Thanks for the patch. Acked-by: Daniel Baluta From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44304C43603 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alsa0.perex.cz (alsa0.perex.cz [77.48.224.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B9FA2464F for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:46:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alsa-project.org header.i=@alsa-project.org header.b="qGLUO/Rw"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="A/uquqn7" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7B9FA2464F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (alsa1.perex.cz [207.180.221.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B20A1654; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:45:49 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa0.perex.cz 3B20A1654 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alsa-project.org; s=default; t=1575539199; bh=7aLdWrG3EiyoimNWqBpRV53fg7vlKMNmwwqOca4RNYg=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=qGLUO/RwN9rZzucjDV2uyWz2YrHX8FUefInwc+exnNKTJOSQrq4lFYO3C7MlhMppz 2Wk0k3ygV+dj6TGYi1vCvqyAcNncMzahaGun/mcPSZh7QtMphwE10ydSgeRP6XM5ij e7bx2a4YtlLpRGfItlfIz9N7d7pDQ1CD5UKB7jG0= Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13C3F8015A; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:45:48 +0100 (CET) Received: by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 50401) id 2E826F801F8; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:45:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wm1-x341.google.com (mail-wm1-x341.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::341]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F283AF800B4 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:45:42 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa1.perex.cz F283AF800B4 Authentication-Results: alsa1.perex.cz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="A/uquqn7" Received: by mail-wm1-x341.google.com with SMTP id g206so2889686wme.1 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:45:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IAHAPcfNyYPZewTfBhsG7qwba+YQCk2356CRIqll3K8=; b=A/uquqn7fzUQpqmYGO+PEXKF1NoPRxYMZ0y2sW+aDKN2NiVkv7K16K/R63JFJt3fdo PAqzhlml/ixjVKxynF0FGEbQBpjyn/orMffUA7RtohOKEsDFu0I2e/m4o3RSxCMcHRPl WxFBf9N9tp3la/OS19JL1VNiHJKI3y4h+yBPMpEsRQkJuXKF10bWuSYlx8+xHkw3mGwu CgsV630jVK1HXVfmmOrNxjhvEIF/6CNZuTECWJ6ux4arJzFKOk9C+ztBFKrFZ5gFiQkG qHjrP2okiVzBNHwpyOOJH+7tZvfC46DiMArQ1geFD4nelFOWtjAoXRxpDUIjaPrhLngI kI9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IAHAPcfNyYPZewTfBhsG7qwba+YQCk2356CRIqll3K8=; b=bgkhjjR58GLCJYVE7z9S0jDUyjDc/OTCoqyNIFpubWXnufFC43YxOLNouIYeATHjWO F8sww1SmJEFU0x2SypWG6L0StGlEcBgwLxIPnEvaAm2dLO7PYwe7LlzPBRTJpZCJADbY ws7DFgE1l791o1oVIXsSI9UvizuApV6L3qvT8Ra3JKQurv/pd+2EjJlBWLevQ422lWuz KkvMi049p+0ZjLtUbTqgj3dUXA7GvvmUTzYlQilGthx0H/mcqgwyJa9YgWgE7CCjsei4 V5UyAtCRxXN2cPx+FYy4Cd+FjkJ/kegJCx6d8lR5ULc0bCC1y7/0Ve6FjZuE2g/5BuCl ey5g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUOgEFHwucZKYrix1EVFg2k6JCQp5tXPZSgFv0yAvjuhQY3uQMq HBb3lYHhApppEMz+szmEaYoIsSUYZy2lOL1BVEg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwcYRc0fuaLRFVleqfgSmiyl3I2fPNK6AKFa5K8/dfNSEFtx+axt8WpebIoZlIVYXmSl6OmkUOLn9wJyytUYes= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4944:: with SMTP id w65mr4047032wma.39.1575539141872; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:45:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191128223802.18228-1-michael@walle.cc> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Baluta Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:45:30 +0200 Message-ID: To: Michael Walle Cc: Linux-ALSA , Timur Tabi , Xiubo Li , Fabio Estevam , Takashi Iwai , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Liam Girdwood , Nicolin Chen , Mark Brown , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_sai: add IRQF_SHARED X-BeenThere: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Alsa-devel mailing list for ALSA developers - http://www.alsa-project.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:18 AM Michael Walle wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > Am 2019-12-05 09:43, schrieb Daniel Baluta: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:40 AM Michael Walle > > wrote: > >> > >> The LS1028A SoC uses the same interrupt line for adjacent SAIs. Use > >> IRQF_SHARED to be able to use these SAIs simultaneously. > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for the patch. We have a similar change inside our internal tree > > (it is on my long TODO list to upstream :D). > > > > We add the shared flag conditionally on a dts property. > > > > Do you think it is a good idea to always add shared flag? I'm thinking > > on SAI IP integrations where the interrupt is edge triggered. > > Mhh, I don't really get the point to make the flag conditionally. If > there is only one user, the flag won't hurt, correct? > > If there are two users, we need the flag anyway. > > > AFAIK edge triggered interrupts do not get along very well > > with sharing an interrupt line. > > So in that case you shouldn't use shared edge triggered interrupts in > the > SoC in the first place, I guess. I think you make a good point. I was thinking that it would hurt the single user case. But it is fine. Thanks for the patch. Acked-by: Daniel Baluta _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D14C43603 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:48:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3B142464D for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:47:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="A/uquqn7" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E3B142464D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47T9rF5jKBzDqb1 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 20:47:57 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::344; helo=mail-wm1-x344.google.com; envelope-from=daniel.baluta@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="A/uquqn7"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-wm1-x344.google.com (mail-wm1-x344.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::344]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47T9nk3gyWzDqYB for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 20:45:46 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x344.google.com with SMTP id p9so2907740wmg.0 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:45:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IAHAPcfNyYPZewTfBhsG7qwba+YQCk2356CRIqll3K8=; b=A/uquqn7fzUQpqmYGO+PEXKF1NoPRxYMZ0y2sW+aDKN2NiVkv7K16K/R63JFJt3fdo PAqzhlml/ixjVKxynF0FGEbQBpjyn/orMffUA7RtohOKEsDFu0I2e/m4o3RSxCMcHRPl WxFBf9N9tp3la/OS19JL1VNiHJKI3y4h+yBPMpEsRQkJuXKF10bWuSYlx8+xHkw3mGwu CgsV630jVK1HXVfmmOrNxjhvEIF/6CNZuTECWJ6ux4arJzFKOk9C+ztBFKrFZ5gFiQkG qHjrP2okiVzBNHwpyOOJH+7tZvfC46DiMArQ1geFD4nelFOWtjAoXRxpDUIjaPrhLngI kI9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IAHAPcfNyYPZewTfBhsG7qwba+YQCk2356CRIqll3K8=; b=qfNwkXSNdsPlARz7Byro1D5eMP65+tRBPbg/nt34KHpipoTvQ4hRPtuiXMMktOg4pt HoZVtR9G+Ydwwp8sDsRoyNuJDHeO3aXAmhTDgyFlldJ4ufE/MBYUroqykCSux9eTlpc5 vIBMFniEdy4F3m1zks8BKOkTX7h+ouzso42frriNi65aDbSkxnrXCn00mru5BGCjDHdB SqyIr4xlduuY+SYwGh8CzRXIaWIe27lqMhkjnoqk6SpwNXSLAmP8+l75E+KEp9owbYR8 ERHXsMj5xURPrMti96BFq/FRuF3E2AC/f3K8kzd3dxHH6K7hhVgsacTEDFBYRHO51CED XItA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXou+YJqYOCnM1d6YdeUjh4EIu40Ybpnw9Coja1GKi0KVqK+xNu 5eCMfJDKVeb60zsgVWLJPCpo5dQeBOZ9UOP8R5Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwcYRc0fuaLRFVleqfgSmiyl3I2fPNK6AKFa5K8/dfNSEFtx+axt8WpebIoZlIVYXmSl6OmkUOLn9wJyytUYes= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4944:: with SMTP id w65mr4047032wma.39.1575539141872; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:45:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191128223802.18228-1-michael@walle.cc> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Baluta Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:45:30 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_sai: add IRQF_SHARED To: Michael Walle Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Linux-ALSA , Timur Tabi , Xiubo Li , Fabio Estevam , Takashi Iwai , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Liam Girdwood , Nicolin Chen , Mark Brown , Jaroslav Kysela , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:18 AM Michael Walle wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > Am 2019-12-05 09:43, schrieb Daniel Baluta: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:40 AM Michael Walle > > wrote: > >> > >> The LS1028A SoC uses the same interrupt line for adjacent SAIs. Use > >> IRQF_SHARED to be able to use these SAIs simultaneously. > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for the patch. We have a similar change inside our internal tree > > (it is on my long TODO list to upstream :D). > > > > We add the shared flag conditionally on a dts property. > > > > Do you think it is a good idea to always add shared flag? I'm thinking > > on SAI IP integrations where the interrupt is edge triggered. > > Mhh, I don't really get the point to make the flag conditionally. If > there is only one user, the flag won't hurt, correct? > > If there are two users, we need the flag anyway. > > > AFAIK edge triggered interrupts do not get along very well > > with sharing an interrupt line. > > So in that case you shouldn't use shared edge triggered interrupts in > the > SoC in the first place, I guess. I think you make a good point. I was thinking that it would hurt the single user case. But it is fine. Thanks for the patch. Acked-by: Daniel Baluta