On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 15:20 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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().
You're right. Had a look at the code and there shouldn't be more than
one thread waiting. wake_up_all() looks OK.
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx>
Regards,
Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
