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

[Wolfram Sang]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:25:59AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature