From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        kevin Barnett <kevin.barnett@microsemi.com>,
        Don Brace <don.brace@microsemi.com>,
        Scott Benesh <scott.benesh@microsemi.com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: smartpqi: Replace semaphore sync_request_sem with mutex
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:10:39 +0200
Message-ID: <3118730.6uvAdDZXCF@wuerfel>
User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-34-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <1476953642-2160-2-git-send-email-binoy.jayan@linaro.org>
References: <1476953642-2160-1-git-send-email-binoy.jayan@linaro.org> <1476953642-2160-2-git-send-email-binoy.jayan@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 596
Lines: 15

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 2:24:01 PM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
> -       sema_init(&ctrl_info->sync_request_sem,
> -               PQI_RESERVED_IO_SLOTS_SYNCHRONOUS_REQUESTS);
> +       mutex_init(&ctrl_info->sync_request_mutex);
> 

Looking at this again, I see that PQI_RESERVED_IO_SLOTS_SYNCHRONOUS_REQUESTS
is '3', so this is in fact a counting semaphore rather than a mutex,
and the conversion is changing the behavior.

The patch can't go in unless you either show that it should be
a normal mutex rather than a counting semaphore, or you find a way
to keep the behavior the same.

	Arnd