[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a781481a0704221652h51a73c21t4ae5ff66760ccee3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:22:10 +0530
From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To: "Matthias Kaehlcke" <matthias.kaehlcke@...il.com>,
chas@....nrl.navy.mil, ecd@...com.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
On 4/23/07, Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias.kaehlcke@...il.com> wrote:
> use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias.kaehlcke@...il.com>
>
> --
>
> diff --git a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> index b4b8014..e3cf141 100644
> --- a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> +++ b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> @@ -2430,7 +2430,7 @@ idt77252_open(struct atm_vcc *vcc)
>
> set_bit(ATM_VF_ADDR, &vcc->flags);
>
> - down(&card->mutex);
> + mutex_lock(&card->mutex);
Note that you're actually replacing a semaphore with a mutex here (and
not a mutex with a spinlock). I guess that should be fine and
desirable as long as the semaphore was indeed being used a mutex
(binary) in this code.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists