From: Meng Li <meng...@windriver.com>
In original code, the static spinlock variable is only used
to implement sync strategy. So, it is not necessary to protect
code with atomic environment, mutex is enough. In this way,
it can avoid causing issue if some code in the protected range
may enter sleeping status.
Signed-off-by: Meng Li <meng...@windriver.com>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/sdk_dpaa/dpaa_eth_common.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/sdk_dpaa/dpaa_eth_common.c
b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/sdk_dpaa/dpaa_eth_common.c
index 5bb6964bc562..c895a12de9c0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/sdk_dpaa/dpaa_eth_common.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/sdk_dpaa/dpaa_eth_common.c
@@ -968,18 +968,18 @@ int dpa_fq_probe_mac(struct device *dev, struct list_head
*list,
EXPORT_SYMBOL(dpa_fq_probe_mac);
static u32 rx_pool_channel;
-static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rx_pool_channel_init);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(rx_pool_channel_init);
int dpa_get_channel(void)
{
- spin_lock(&rx_pool_channel_init);
+ mutex_lock(&rx_pool_channel_init);
if (!rx_pool_channel) {
u32 pool;
int ret = qman_alloc_pool(&pool);
if (!ret)
rx_pool_channel = pool;
}
- spin_unlock(&rx_pool_channel_init);
+ mutex_unlock(&rx_pool_channel_init);
if (!rx_pool_channel)
return -ENOMEM;
return rx_pool_channel;
--
2.17.1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#10505):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/linux-yocto/message/10505
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/85967381/21656
Group Owner: linux-yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/linux-yocto/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
