Hi Geert, On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:03:27 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Jean Delvare <[email protected]> wrote: > > It doesn't seem this spinlock was properly initialized. > > Quiet possible. There's no SMP on m68k, so all spinlock ops expand to nothing.
Can we apply my patch still? Or were you suggesting you're fine with the code as it is? Certainly this isn't my area of expertise but I don't quite get the point of passing a custom lock to blk_init_queue() if locks resolve to nothing anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <[email protected]> > > Cc: Finn Thain <[email protected]> > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > > --- > > I can't even build-test this. > > > > drivers/block/swim.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > --- linux-3.6-rc4.orig/drivers/block/swim.c 2012-07-21 > > 22:58:29.000000000 +0200 > > +++ linux-3.6-rc4/drivers/block/swim.c 2012-09-06 13:09:26.713382169 +0200 > > @@ -845,6 +845,7 @@ static int __devinit swim_floppy_init(st > > swd->unit[drive].swd = swd; > > } > > > > + spin_lock_init(&swd->lock); > > swd->queue = blk_init_queue(do_fd_request, &swd->lock); > > if (!swd->queue) { > > err = -ENOMEM; -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
