From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752437Ab2LPUsK (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:48:10 -0500 Received: from zoneX.GCU-Squad.org ([194.213.125.0]:4071 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751031Ab2LPUsI (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:48:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:48:00 +0100 From: Jean Delvare To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: LKML , Finn Thain Subject: Re: [PATCH] swim: Add missing spinlock init Message-ID: <20121216214800.3ad603b4@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: References: <20120906134830.52cbdfec@endymion.delvare> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.7; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Geert, On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:03:27 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Jean Delvare 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. > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare > > Cc: Finn Thain > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven > > --- > > 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; -- Jean Delvare