From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi, Using complete_all() is not wrong per se but it suggest that there might be more than one reader. For -rt I am reviewing all complete_all() users and would like to leave only the real ones in the tree. The main problem for -rt about complete_all() is that it can be uses inside IRQ context and that can lead to unbounded amount work inside the interrupt handler. That is a no no for -rt. The patches grouped per subsystem and in small batches to allow reviewing. Unfortanatly I am not so good in coming up with unique commit message, so please bear with me in that regard. I could also squash them together, although each patch containts a very short reasoning why there is only one waiter. Let me know what you rather prefer. One patch which updates all complete_all() users or those 4 patches with some reasoning. It is only test compiled because I don't have the all the hardware. cheers, daniel Daniel Wagner (4): i2c: bcm-iproc: Use complete() instead of complete_all() i2c: bcm-kona: Use complete() instead of complete_all() i2c: brcmstb: Use complete() instead of complete_all() i2c: meson: Use complete() instead of complete_all() drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c | 2 +- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-kona.c | 2 +- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-brcmstb.c | 2 +- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-meson.c | 6 +++--- 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) -- 2.7.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
