On 10/16/2017 05:03 AM, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:38:51 -0400 Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.c index 66bfa54..418c23b 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.c +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.c @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ static int ap_matrix_dev_create(void) matrix->device.bus = &ap_matrix_bus_type; matrix->device.parent = ap_matrix_root_device; matrix->device.release = ap_matrix_dev_release; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&matrix->queues); ret = device_register(&matrix->device); if (ret) { diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.h index c2aff23..3eccc36 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.h +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/ap_matrix_bus.h @@ -12,8 +12,12 @@ #include <linux/device.h> +#include "ap_bus.h" + struct ap_matrix { struct device device; + spinlock_t qlock; + struct list_head queues; }; struct ap_matrix *ap_matrix_get_device(void);Move these two hunks into patch #5 please. Yes, strictly speaking the two elements in the struct ap_matrix are needed only with patch #6, but it is fine to introduce an element with a new driver that is only exploited with a later patch.
Will do.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
