lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Patch RFC 13/37] s390: cio/crw: semaphore cleanup
    On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:18:10 -0000
    Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

    > The usage of this "mutex" is non obvious and probably a completion in
    > some places. Make it a semaphore.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
    > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
    > ---
    > drivers/s390/cio/crw.c | 2 +-
    > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >
    > Index: linux-2.6-tip/drivers/s390/cio/crw.c
    > ===================================================================
    > --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/drivers/s390/cio/crw.c
    > +++ linux-2.6-tip/drivers/s390/cio/crw.c
    > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ void crw_handle_channel_report(void)
    > */
    > static int __init crw_init_semaphore(void)
    > {
    > - init_MUTEX_LOCKED(&crw_semaphore);
    > + semaphore_init_locked(&crw_semaphore);
    > return 0;
    > }
    > pure_initcall(crw_init_semaphore);
    >
    >

    The crw_semaphore is a real semaphore and the init_MUTEX_LOCKED is
    indeed confusing. semaphore_init_locked is a more sensible name even if
    the end result is in both cases just a sema_init(sem, 0). Anyway, fine
    with me:

    Acked-By: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>

    --
    blue skies,
    Martin.

    "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-27 13:49    [W:0.033 / U:62.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site