Re: [Patch RFC 13/37] s390: cio/crw: semaphore cleanup

[Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:18:10 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> The usage of this "mutex" is non obvious and probably a completion in
> some places. Make it a semaphore.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/s390/cio/crw.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6-tip/drivers/s390/cio/crw.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/drivers/s390/cio/crw.c
> +++ linux-2.6-tip/drivers/s390/cio/crw.c
> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ void crw_handle_channel_report(void)
>   */
>  static int __init crw_init_semaphore(void)
>  {
> -	init_MUTEX_LOCKED(&crw_semaphore);
> +	semaphore_init_locked(&crw_semaphore);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  pure_initcall(crw_init_semaphore);
> 
> 

The crw_semaphore is a real semaphore and the init_MUTEX_LOCKED is
indeed confusing. semaphore_init_locked is a more sensible name even if
the end result is in both cases just a sema_init(sem, 0). Anyway, fine
with me:

Acked-By: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.