[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHv-k_-FE6acJ2U=Ps675ea6wK_W=jUamjdNtWpvH__OP=H-AA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:39:27 +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
On 20 October 2016 at 14:40, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 2:24:01 PM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
>> - sema_init(&ctrl_info->sync_request_sem,
>> - PQI_RESERVED_IO_SLOTS_SYNCHRONOUS_REQUESTS);
>> + mutex_init(&ctrl_info->sync_request_mutex);
>>
>
> Looking at this again, I see that PQI_RESERVED_IO_SLOTS_SYNCHRONOUS_REQUESTS
> is '3', so this is in fact a counting semaphore rather than a mutex,
> and the conversion is changing the behavior.
>
> The patch can't go in unless you either show that it should be
> a normal mutex rather than a counting semaphore, or you find a way
> to keep the behavior the same.
This still holds true, will try changing this accordingly.
-Binoy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists