On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:25:59AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: > 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.
All applied to for-current, thanks!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
