Re: [PATCH] use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver

[Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias.kaehlcke@gmail.com>]

El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400 Kyle Moffett ha dit:

> On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> >use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
> 
> I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in  
> idt77252 driver", since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex,  
> which are always binary):
> >-	struct semaphore	mutex;
> 
> and this is a mutex, not a spinlock:
> >+	struct mutex		mutex;
> 
> Everything else looks good though

you're totally right. like in another patch i sent at the same time i
messed up the description. as you point out it should read "Use mutex
instead of binary semaphore in idt77252 driver". in the last days i
reported some spinlock related bugs, i suppose that made me write
spinlock instead of mutex ...

thanks for your comments

-- 
Matthias Kaehlcke
Linux Application Developer
Barcelona

                If you don't know where you are going,
               you will probably end up somewhere else
                         (Laurence J. Peter)
                                                                 .''`.
    using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org  : :'  :
                                                                `. `'`
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4                  `-