On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:18:10AM +0100, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:24:59AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:51:54AM +0100, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> > > Hello Sascha,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 03:27:46PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * slice_acquired: test if a slice is acquired
> > > > + * @slice: The slice to test
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This tests if a slice is acquired. Returns true if it is, false otherwise
> > > > + */
> > > > +bool slice_acquired(struct slice *slice)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct slice_entry *se;
> > > > + int acquired = slice->acquired;
> > > > + bool ret = false;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (acquired > 0)
> > > > + return true;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (acquired < 0) {
> > > > + pr_err("Recursive dependency detected in slice %s\n",
> > > > + slice_name(slice));
> > > > + panic("Cannot continue");
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + slice->acquired = -1;
> > > > +
> > > > + list_for_each_entry(se, &slice->deps, list)
> > > > + if (slice_acquired(se->slice)) {
> > > > + ret = true;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + slice->acquired = acquired;
> > >
> > > no need to restore slice->acquire from acquired since
> > > acquired must have been zero if we reach this line.
> >
> > Hm, no. Nothing changes slice->acquired in this function besides
> > ourselves. It is still -1 how we have set it previously.
>
> What I wanted to say is that you can simply use
> slice->acquired = 0;
> at the end.
Yes, in the meantime a collegue explained that to me as well ;)
Changed accordingly.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
