On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 17:37 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nicholas Mc Guire
> > The spin_lock()/spin_unlock() is synchronizing on the adapter->work_lock
> > as the comment also suggests, which is equivalent to spin_unlock_wait()
> > but the later should be more efficient.
The spin_lock()/spin_unlock() is synchronizing on the adapter->work_lock
as the comment also suggests, which is equivalent to spin_unlock_wait()
but the later should be more efficient.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire
---
Problem located by coccinelle spatch
Patch was compile
From: Nicholas Mc Guire
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:32:05 +0100
> The spin_lock()/spin_unlock() is synchronizing on the adapter->work_lock
> as the comment also suggests, which is equivalent to spin_unlock_wait()
> but the later should be more efficient.
>
> Signed-off-by:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 03:35:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 17:37 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Nicholas Mc Guire
> > > The spin_lock()/spin_unlock() is synchronizing on the adapter->work_lock
> > > as the comment also suggests, which is