Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:42:56 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] swim: Add missing spinlock init | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
Hi Jean,
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:03:27 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> 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.
Thanks, applied and queued for 3.9.
>> > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> >> > Cc: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> >> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> >> > --- >> > 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;
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |