On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <o...@wizery.com> wrote: > 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.
If anyone needs the complete patch now, the original can be found here: http://dev.omapzoom.org/?p=tisyslink/kernel-syslink.git;a=commitdiff;h=8da0385a57cc470ee0a013b164fd3d2438455e79 Thanks, Ohad. > > 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
