[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1470316030-4153-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:07:08 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Use complete() instead of complete_all()
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-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 2
patches with some reasoning.
It is only test compiled because I don't have the all the hardware.
cheers,
daniel
Daniel Wagner (2):
iio: adc: Use complete() instead of complete_all()
iio: sx9500: Use complete() instead of complete_all()
drivers/iio/adc/nau7802.c | 2 +-
drivers/iio/proximity/sx9500.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists