Re: [PATCH] swim: Add missing spinlock init

From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Sun Jan 13 2013 - 04:42:57 EST


Hi Jean,

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/