Subject: Re: [PATCH] ucode debug status via sysfs for wireless-2.6

From: Larry Finger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:21:14 -0500

Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:34, Larry Finger wrote:
>> +		return -EPERM;
>> +
> 
> you want to take the spinlock lock here, too.

Obviously, I copied the wrong model. Is it correct that one should take both locks if your code will 
touch the hardware, but the mutex lock only is sufficient if your code just accesses data 
structures? This seems to be the pattern in the other bcm43xx_attr_xxxx_show routines.

Larry