[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090727134512.5105470b@skybase>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:45:12 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch RFC 13/37] s390: cio/crw: semaphore cleanup
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:18:10 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.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@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...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@...ibm.com>
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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