On 18/01/17 21:14, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 01/16/2017 09:15 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> +
>> +static uint32_t xs_request_enter(struct xb_req_data *req)
>> +{
>> + uint32_t rq_id;
>> +
>> + req->type = req->msg.type;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&xs_state_lock);
>> + for (;;) {
>> + if (req->msg.tx_id != 0)
>> + break;
>> + if (xs_suspend_active) {
>> + spin_unlock(&xs_state_lock);
>> + wait_event(xs_state_enter_wq, xs_suspend_active == 0);
>> + spin_lock(&xs_state_lock);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + if (req->type == XS_TRANSACTION_START)
>> + xs_state_users++;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + xs_state_users++;
>> + rq_id = xs_request_id++;
>> + spin_unlock(&xs_state_lock);
>> +
>> + return rq_id;
>> +}
>
> I should have noticed this last time but I've been looking at this code
> again and I don't think I understand why you are incrementing count for
> XS_TRANSACTION_START inside the loop.
>
> In fact, why not just 'while(xs_suspend_active) {}' loop?
That's a valid question.
I'll change it. The reason to have the larger loop body isn't existing
any longer.
Juergen
