[PATCH 0/4] Use complete() instead of complete_all()

[Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>]

From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@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