From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/51] IB/qib: Add qib_driver.c Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:23:33 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20091203190305.29507.58158.stgit@chromite.mv.qlogic.com> <20091203190413.29507.17962.stgit@chromite.mv.qlogic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ralph Campbell Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > +DEFINE_MUTEX(qib_mutex); /* general driver use */ Rather than having this ill-defined mutex that I think is going to make it hard to understand the locking and get the lock ordering right, would it be better to have well-defined locking rules? AFAICT this mutex is used in only two places, qib_diag.c and qib_file_op.c. Are those two uses protecting the same thing? Or could we have two static mutexes, one in each file, that protects what each file needs protected? -- Roland Dreier || For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html