It looks at least odd to apply spin_unlock to a mutex.
authorJulia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:50:56 +0000 (22:50 +0200)
committerJesper Nilsson <jesper@jni.nu>
Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:50:56 +0000 (22:50 +0200)
commit9be48a94b8ae8c944dc918ad65f2f27e9df3ed00
tree3cedc0a34bfc219d66a0ef3cfd395d5c7b06e7a6
parent543cf4cb3fe6f6cae3651ba918b9c56200b257d0
It looks at least odd to apply spin_unlock to a mutex.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
(http://www.emn.fr/x-info/coccinelle/)

// <smpl>
@def@
declarer DEFINE_MUTEX;
identifier m;
@@

DEFINE_MUTEX(m);

@@
identifier def.m;
@@

(
- spin_lock(&m)
+ mutex_lock(&m)
|
- spin_unlock(&m)
+ mutex_unlock(&m)
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Signed-off-by: Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>
arch/cris/arch-v10/drivers/pcf8563.c
arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/pcf8563.c