lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site