On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 11:29:49AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > There is no need to be using a semaphore, or a sleeping lock > in the first place: critical region is extremely short, does not > call into any blocking calls and furthermore lock and unlocking > operations occur in the same context. > > Get rid of another semaphore user by replacing it with a spinlock. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > This is in an effort to further reduce semaphore users in the kernel. > > This is a resend, which just seems simpler given the confusions. > > .../staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_2835_arm.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) This patch does not apply to my tree at all, what did you make it against? Please fix up and resend. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
