From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wag...@bmw-carit.de> 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. cheers, daniel Daniel Wagner (4): misc: mic: scif: use complete() instead of complete_all() misc: mic: vop: use complete() instead of complete_all() misc: ti-st: use complete() instead of complete_all() misc: tifm: use complete() instead of complete_all() drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_nodeqp.c | 2 +- drivers/misc/mic/vop/vop_main.c | 2 +- drivers/misc/ti-st/st_kim.c | 2 +- drivers/misc/tifm_7xx1.c | 2 +- 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -- 2.7.4
