Hi Hari,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Kanigeri, Hari <h-kanige...@ti.com> wrote:
> Ohad,
>
> Looks like the conversion was missed in few places resulting in compile
> warnings.
Thanks for pointing that out - that's really strange, it somehow
slipped in the rebase.
The interesting part is that because you compile for OMAP4 (SMP),
you got to see the warnings, while I didn't because I compiled for OMAP3
(in the UP case there's no real locking and both types of locks are
actually the same).
>
> Please see the below fix. Let me know if you agree with the change.
Sure. I'll add that missing part back together with the review comments,
and submit a v2 patchset.
Thanks again,
Ohad.
>
> #########
> [PATCH] omap: mailbox: rwlocks to spinlock: compilation fix
>
> fixed the missed rwlocks in few places resultion in following
> compiler warning.
>
> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c: In function 'omap_mbox_startup':
> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c:246: warning: passing argument 1 of
> '_raw_write_lock' from incompatible pointer type
> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c:251: warning: passing argument 1 of
> '_raw_write_unlock' from incompatible pointer type
> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c:255: warning: passing argument 1 of
> '_raw_write_unlock' from incompatible pointer type
> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c: In function 'omap_mbox_fini':
> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c:301: warning: passing argument 1 of
> '_raw_write_lock' from incompatible pointer type
> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c:306: warning: passing argument 1 of
> '_raw_write_unlock' from incompatible pointer type
>
> Signed-off-by: Hari Kanigeri <h-kanige...@ti.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
> index 27a8d98..d6a700d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
> @@ -243,16 +243,16 @@ static int omap_mbox_startup(struct omap_mbox *mbox)
> struct omap_mbox_queue *mq;
>
> if (likely(mbox->ops->startup)) {
> - write_lock(&mboxes_lock);
> + spin_lock(&mboxes_lock);
> if (!mbox_configured)
> ret = mbox->ops->startup(mbox);
>
> if (unlikely(ret)) {
> - write_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
> return ret;
> }
> mbox_configured++;
> - write_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
> }
>
> ret = request_irq(mbox->irq, mbox_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED,
> @@ -298,12 +298,12 @@ static void omap_mbox_fini(struct omap_mbox *mbox)
> free_irq(mbox->irq, mbox);
>
> if (likely(mbox->ops->shutdown)) {
> - write_lock(&mboxes_lock);
> + spin_lock(&mboxes_lock);
> if (mbox_configured > 0)
> mbox_configured--;
> if (!mbox_configured)
> mbox->ops->shutdown(mbox);
> - write_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
> }
> }
>
> --
>
> ################
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ohad Ben-Cohen [mailto:o...@wizery.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:56 PM
>> To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi Doyu; Ohad Ben-Cohen
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/4] omap: mailbox cleanup: convert rwlocks
>> to spinlock
>>
>> rwlocks are slower and have potential starvation issues so
>> spinlocks are generally preferred
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen <o...@wizery.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
>> b/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c index 08a2df7..d73d51a 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/mailbox.c
>> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
>>
>> static struct workqueue_struct *mboxd;
>> static struct omap_mbox *mboxes;
>> -static DEFINE_RWLOCK(mboxes_lock);
>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(mboxes_lock);
>>
>> static int mbox_configured;
>>
>> @@ -330,14 +330,14 @@ struct omap_mbox *omap_mbox_get(const
>> char *name)
>> struct omap_mbox *mbox;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - read_lock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_lock(&mboxes_lock);
>> mbox = *(find_mboxes(name));
>> if (mbox == NULL) {
>> - read_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>> }
>>
>> - read_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>>
>> ret = omap_mbox_startup(mbox);
>> if (ret)
>> @@ -363,15 +363,15 @@ int omap_mbox_register(struct device
>> *parent, struct omap_mbox *mbox)
>> if (mbox->next)
>> return -EBUSY;
>>
>> - write_lock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_lock(&mboxes_lock);
>> tmp = find_mboxes(mbox->name);
>> if (*tmp) {
>> ret = -EBUSY;
>> - write_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> goto err_find;
>> }
>> *tmp = mbox;
>> - write_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>>
>> return 0;
>>
>> @@ -384,18 +384,18 @@ int omap_mbox_unregister(struct
>> omap_mbox *mbox) {
>> struct omap_mbox **tmp;
>>
>> - write_lock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_lock(&mboxes_lock);
>> tmp = &mboxes;
>> while (*tmp) {
>> if (mbox == *tmp) {
>> *tmp = mbox->next;
>> mbox->next = NULL;
>> - write_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> return 0;
>> }
>> tmp = &(*tmp)->next;
>> }
>> - write_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&mboxes_lock);
>>
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> --
>> 1.6.3.3
>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
