[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHv-k_956e7bFnMedo34nJS=nQ-OC=UUic+VsAYSRL69iTeX+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:34:27 +0530
From: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
kevin Barnett <kevin.barnett@...rosemi.com>,
Don Brace <don.brace@...rosemi.com>,
Scott Benesh <scott.benesh@...rosemi.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: smartpqi: Replace semaphore sync_request_sem
with mutex
Hi Arnd
On 20 October 2016 at 14:36, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 2:24:01 PM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
>> Semaphores are going away in the future, so replace the semaphore
>> sync_request_sem with the a mutex lock. timeout_msecs is not used
>> for the lock sync_request_sem, so remove the timed locking too.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
>
> The patch looks correct to me, but I think if you remove the support
> for handling timeouts, you should update the prototype of
> pqi_submit_raid_request_synchronous to no longer pass the timeout
> argument in the first place.
But we still need "timeout_msecs" in a call to
pqi_submit_raid_request_synchronous_with_io_request()
drivers/scsi/smartpqi/smartpqi_init.c +3484
-Binoy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists