On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Sell, Timothy C wrote: > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > I think I asked this before, but I might have missed the answer. > > > > Why is this a rw_sempahore? It's never taken with down_read and looking > > at the usage sites it's simply a mutex, right? > > If the semaphore --> mutex change would have been as simple as it sounds, > we would have had NO problem including it with the next version (v3) of this > patchset. But unfortunately, this change uncovered a latent defect, which > necessitated yet another patch. (I know... hard to believe that something > this simple would do that, but it did.) Rather than further complicating this > patchset, we thought it would be better to address the visorinput issues via a > separate follow-on patchset. That makes me curious. What's the issue? Functional is the mutex the same thing as the r/w semaphore when the latter is only taken down_write and locked and released by the same thread, which is the case as far as I can tell. > Is that acceptable for you? Please fix it before moving the drivers out of staging. Thanks, tglx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
