3.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com>

commit 165b1b8bbc17c9469b053bab78b11b7cbce6d161 upstream.

The cvq_lock was taken for the c_ivq.  Rename the lock to make that
obvious.

We'll also add a lock around the c_ovq in the next commit, so there's no
ambiguity.

Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Asias He <as...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanl...@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au>
[bwh: Backported to 3.2:
 - Adjust context
 - Drop change to virtcons_restore()]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>
[wyj: Backported to 3.4:
 - pick change to virtcons_restore() from upsteam patch]
Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyij...@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/char/virtio_console.c |   17 +++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
+++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ struct ports_device {
        spinlock_t ports_lock;
 
        /* To protect the vq operations for the control channel */
-       spinlock_t cvq_lock;
+       spinlock_t c_ivq_lock;
 
        /* The current config space is stored here */
        struct virtio_console_config config;
@@ -1474,23 +1474,23 @@ static void control_work_handler(struct
        portdev = container_of(work, struct ports_device, control_work);
        vq = portdev->c_ivq;
 
-       spin_lock(&portdev->cvq_lock);
+       spin_lock(&portdev->c_ivq_lock);
        while ((buf = virtqueue_get_buf(vq, &len))) {
-               spin_unlock(&portdev->cvq_lock);
+               spin_unlock(&portdev->c_ivq_lock);
 
                buf->len = len;
                buf->offset = 0;
 
                handle_control_message(portdev, buf);
 
-               spin_lock(&portdev->cvq_lock);
+               spin_lock(&portdev->c_ivq_lock);
                if (add_inbuf(portdev->c_ivq, buf) < 0) {
                        dev_warn(&portdev->vdev->dev,
                                 "Error adding buffer to queue\n");
                        free_buf(buf);
                }
        }
-       spin_unlock(&portdev->cvq_lock);
+       spin_unlock(&portdev->c_ivq_lock);
 }
 
 static void out_intr(struct virtqueue *vq)
@@ -1751,10 +1751,11 @@ static int __devinit virtcons_probe(stru
        if (multiport) {
                unsigned int nr_added_bufs;
 
-               spin_lock_init(&portdev->cvq_lock);
+               spin_lock_init(&portdev->c_ivq_lock);
                INIT_WORK(&portdev->control_work, &control_work_handler);
 
-               nr_added_bufs = fill_queue(portdev->c_ivq, &portdev->cvq_lock);
+               nr_added_bufs = fill_queue(portdev->c_ivq,
+                                          &portdev->c_ivq_lock);
                if (!nr_added_bufs) {
                        dev_err(&vdev->dev,
                                "Error allocating buffers for control queue\n");
@@ -1895,7 +1896,7 @@ static int virtcons_restore(struct virti
                return ret;
 
        if (use_multiport(portdev))
-               fill_queue(portdev->c_ivq, &portdev->cvq_lock);
+               fill_queue(portdev->c_ivq, &portdev->c_ivq_lock);
 
        list_for_each_entry(port, &portdev->ports, list) {
                port->in_vq = portdev->in_vqs[port->id];


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to