linux-kernel - Re: staging/wilc1000: wrong conversion to completion?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2175605.xXp7n8TQsH@wuerfel>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:08:44 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: staging/wilc1000: wrong conversion to completion?

On Monday, July 11, 2016 9:41:15 AM CEST Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> while looking at this commit:
> 
> commit b27a6d5e636ac80b223a18ca2b3c892f1caef9e3
> Author: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
> Date:   Wed Jun 15 11:00:34 2016 +0530
> 
>     staging: wilc1000: Replace semaphore txq_event with completion
> 
>     The semaphore 'txq_event' is used as completion, so convert it
>     to a struct completion type.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
>     Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>     Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> index 274c390d17cd..baf932681362 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ static int linux_wlan_txq_task(void *vp)
> 
>         complete(&wl->txq_thread_started);
>         while (1) {
> -               down(&wl->txq_event);
> +               wait_for_completion(&wl->txq_event);
> 
>                 if (wl->close) {
>                         complete(&wl->txq_thread_started);
> @@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ void wilc1000_wlan_deinit(struct net_device *dev)
>                         mutex_unlock(&wl->hif_cs);
>                 }
>                 if (&wl->txq_event)
> -                       up(&wl->txq_event);
> +                       wait_for_completion(&wl->txq_event);
> 
> 
> I wonder: is this correct? Should that be complete() instead?
> 

Yes, I agree, sorry for missing that in my review.

	Arnd