On Monday, July 11, 2016 9:41:15 AM CEST Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while looking at this commit:
>
> commit b27a6d5e636ac80b223a18ca2b3c892f1caef9e3
> Author: Binoy Jayan <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed Jun 15 11:00:34 2016 +0530
>
> staging: wilc1000: Replace semaphore txq_event with completion
>
> The semaphore 'txq_event' is used as completion, so convert it
> to a struct completion type.
>
> Signed-off-by: Binoy Jayan <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> index 274c390d17cd..baf932681362 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_wlan.c
> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ static int linux_wlan_txq_task(void *vp)
>
> complete(&wl->txq_thread_started);
> while (1) {
> - down(&wl->txq_event);
> + wait_for_completion(&wl->txq_event);
>
> if (wl->close) {
> complete(&wl->txq_thread_started);
> @@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ void wilc1000_wlan_deinit(struct net_device *dev)
> mutex_unlock(&wl->hif_cs);
> }
> if (&wl->txq_event)
> - up(&wl->txq_event);
> + wait_for_completion(&wl->txq_event);
>
>
> I wonder: is this correct? Should that be complete() instead?
>
Yes, I agree, sorry for missing that in my review.
Arnd
