[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877eizjt5j.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:06:48 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To: Lance Roy <ldr709@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>,
Ulrich Kunitz <kune@...ne-taler.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] wireless: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep
Lance Roy <ldr709@...il.com> writes:
> lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@...il.com>
> Cc: Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>
> Cc: Ulrich Kunitz <kune@...ne-taler.de>
> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
> Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/zydas/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Should I take this or is it going through some other tree?
If it goes to via some other tree:
Acked-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
--
Kalle Valo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists