[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1470389163-4594-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:25:59 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>,
Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@...el.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] 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 4
patches with some reasoning.
It is only test compiled because I don't have the all the hardware.
cheers,
daniel
Daniel Wagner (4):
misc: mic: scif: use complete() instead of complete_all()
misc: mic: vop: use complete() instead of complete_all()
misc: ti-st: use complete() instead of complete_all()
misc: tifm: use complete() instead of complete_all()
drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_nodeqp.c | 2 +-
drivers/misc/mic/vop/vop_main.c | 2 +-
drivers/misc/ti-st/st_kim.c | 2 +-
drivers/misc/tifm_7xx1.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists