On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:38:51 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.c
> index 66bfa54..418c23b 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ static int ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
> matrix->device.bus = &ap_matrix_bus_type;
> matrix->device.parent = ap_matrix_root_device;
> matrix->device.release = ap_matrix_dev_release;
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&matrix->queues);
>
> ret = device_register(&matrix->device);
> if (ret) {
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.h
> index c2aff23..3eccc36 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.h
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.h
> @@ -12,8 +12,12 @@
>
> #include <linux/device.h>
>
> +#include "ap_bus.h"
> +
> struct ap_matrix {
> struct device device;
> + spinlock_t qlock;
> + struct list_head queues;
> };
>
> struct ap_matrix *ap_matrix_get_device(void);
Move these two hunks into patch #5 please. Yes, strictly speaking the two elements
in the struct ap_matrix are needed only with patch #6, but it is fine to introduce
an element with a new driver that is only exploited with a later patch.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
