Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Wagner <> | Subject | [PATCH v0 0/4] Use complete() instead of complete_all() | Date | Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:03:07 +0200 |
| |
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Hi,
Using complete_all() is not wrong per se but it suggest that there might be more than one reader. For -rt I am reviewing all complete_all() users and would like to leave only the real ones in the tree. The main problem for -rt about complete_all() is that it can be uses inside IRQ context and that can lead to unbounded amount work inside the interrupt handler. That is a no no for -rt.
The patches grouped per subsystem and in small batches to allow reviewing. Unfortanatly I am not so good in coming up with unique commit message, so please bear with me in that regard. I could also squash them together, although each patch containts a very short reasoning why there is only one waiter. Let me know what you rather prefer. One patch which updates all complete_all() users or those 4 patches with some reasoning.
It is only test compiled because I don't have the all the hardware.
cheers, daniel
Daniel Wagner (4): i2c: bcm-iproc: Use complete() instead of complete_all() i2c: bcm-kona: Use complete() instead of complete_all() i2c: brcmstb: Use complete() instead of complete_all() i2c: meson: Use complete() instead of complete_all()
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c | 2 +- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-kona.c | 2 +- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-brcmstb.c | 2 +- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-meson.c | 6 +++--- 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
-- 2.7.4
| |