Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:11:19 +0100 (CET) | From | Kai Germaschewski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] test12-pre8 task queue fix batch |
| |
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> More fixes. Ignore previous.
diff -urw linux-2.4.0-test12.old/drivers/atm/ambassador.c linux-2.4.0-test12/drivers/atm/ambassador.c --- linux-2.4.0-test12.old/drivers/atm/ambassador.c Fri Jul 7 00:37:24 2000 +++ linux-2.4.0-test12/drivers/atm/ambassador.c Sun Dec 10 19:44:09 2000 @@ -2397,7 +2397,7 @@ #ifdef FILL_RX_POOLS_IN_BH // initialise bottom half - dev->bh.next = 0; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->bh.list); dev->bh.sync = 0; dev->bh.routine = (void (*)(void *)) fill_rx_pools; dev->bh.data = dev; > (and so on)
I don't think this is the right fix. First of all, if one needed to the INIT_LIST_HEAD, some new macro should be introduced (INIT_TASK or something), which takes care of the .list and .sync structures. So when something was about to change again in the future, you wouldn't have to go through all the files and fix them again.
But: The INIT_LIST_HEAD is unnecessary and misleading at least, because tqueue->list is not a list head, it's there to allow for adding the struct tqueue onto a task_queue. So we have the task_queue, that's the list head - it needs to be initialized, and that's already done via DECLARE_TASK_QUEUE. Then we have tasks to be added to the list (struct tqueue), their .list members don't need to be initialized because they get set when the task is queued on a task_queue (in queue_task).
So I think the correct fix is just to remove the offending lines.
--Kai
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |