On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 03:35:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 17:37 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > From: Nicholas Mc Guire <hof...@osadl.org> > > > The spin_lock()/spin_unlock() is synchronizing on the adapter->work_lock > > > as the comment also suggests, which is equivalent to spin_unlock_wait() > > > but the later should be more efficient. > [] > > There really is no justification for this change. > > This is an optimization in a slow-path of the driver. > > The device is a rarely used older piece of hardware. > > It really might be nice to take some of the ancient > hardware drivers in drivers/net and move them into > some separate subdirectory like: > > drivers/net/ancient > or > drivers/net/antiques > or > drivers/net/archaic > etc... > > so there's some clear designation that these crufty > old drivers don't need to be touched anymore except > for maybe when kernel wide changes occur. > actually thats just the problem - some of those did not perform such kernel wide changes lock/unlock -> unlock_wait being one of them. But having a distinction as proposed to keep people like me from scanning them, sounds like a good idea.
Will add an "age of code" check before submitting API cleanups. thx! hofrat
