| Date | Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:45:12 +0200 | From | Martin Schwidefsky <> | Subject | Re: [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.
|