On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:25 PM David Miller wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:17:20 +0100
>
> > @@ -635,8 +636,9 @@ static int threadfunc(void *data)
> > int i, step, err = 0, insert_retries = 0;
> > struct thread_data *tdata = data;
> >
> > - up(&presta
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:17:20 +0100
> @@ -635,8 +636,9 @@ static int threadfunc(void *data)
> int i, step, err = 0, insert_retries = 0;
> struct thread_data *tdata = data;
>
> - up(&prestart_sem);
> - if (down_interruptible(&startup_sem))
> + if (at
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:45:52PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:17:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > This is one of only two files that initialize a semaphore to a negative
> > value. We don't really need the two semaphores here at all, but can do
> > the same thing
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:17:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This is one of only two files that initialize a semaphore to a negative
> value. We don't really need the two semaphores here at all, but can do
> the same thing in more conventional and more effient way, by using a
> single waitqueue
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:17:20 +0100
> This is one of only two files that initialize a semaphore to a negative
> value. We don't really need the two semaphores here at all, but can do
> the same thing in more conventional and more effient way, by using a
> single waitqueue an
This is one of only two files that initialize a semaphore to a negative
value. We don't really need the two semaphores here at all, but can do
the same thing in more conventional and more effient way, by using a
single waitqueue and an atomic thread counter.
This gets us a little bit closer to eli
