Re: [PATCH 0/4] Use complete() instead of complete_all()

From	Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 0/4] Use complete() instead of complete_all()
Date	2016-08-15 01:00 +0200
Message-ID	<s6cxP-5Pc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<s2JC2-5By-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:25:59AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Using complete_all() is not wrong per se but it suggest that there
> might be more than one reader. For -rt I am reviewing all
> complete_all() users and would like to leave only the real ones in the
> tree. The main problem for -rt about complete_all() is that it can be
> uses inside IRQ context and that can lead to unbounded amount work
> inside the interrupt handler. That is a no no for -rt.
> 
> The patches grouped per subsystem and in small batches to allow
> reviewing. Unfortanatly I am not so good in coming up with unique
> commit message, so please bear with me in that regard. I could also
> squash them together, although each patch containts a very short
> reasoning why there is only one waiter. Let me know what you rather
> prefer. One patch which updates all complete_all() users or those 4
> patches with some reasoning.
> 
> It is only test compiled because I don't have the all the hardware.

All applied to for-current, thanks!

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 0/4]  Use complete() instead of complete_all() Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-08-15 01:00 +0200

csiph-web