On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:36 PM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
<nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 22:11 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > @@ -447,26 +444,26 @@ remote_event_wait(VCHIQ_STATE_T *state,
> > REMOTE_EVENT_T *event)
> > }
> >
> > static inline void
> > -remote_event_signal_local(VCHIQ_STATE_T *state, REMOTE_EVENT_T
> > *event)
> > +remote_event_signal_local(wait_queue_head_t *wq, REMOTE_EVENT_T
> > *event)
> > {
> > event->armed = 0;
> > - complete((struct completion *)((char *)state + event->event));
> > + wake_up_all(wq);
>
> Shouldn't this just be "wake_up(wq)"?
I wasn't entirely sure if we could get with more than one thread waiting
for the wakeup. With the semaphore or completion that would already
be broken because we'd only wake up one of them, but I was hoping
to stay on the safe side with wake_up_all().
Arnd
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
