)]}'
{
  "commit": "da37a53a541d946e930bd2dea13a088dad915e82",
  "tree": "81dbb5748ca62335406a92b4d5db150b3a69c1d7",
  "parents": [
    "ec554f44d99eef8800e341db5fa95ba40755d351"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Andy Ross",
    "email": "andrew.j.ross@intel.com",
    "time": "Tue Jul 24 14:12:36 2018 -0700"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Anas Nashif",
    "email": "anas.nashif@intel.com",
    "time": "Fri Feb 08 14:49:39 2019 -0500"
  },
  "message": "kernel/k_sem: Spinlockify\n\nSwitch semaphores to use a subsystem spinlock instead of the system\nirqlock.\n\nNote that this is only \"half way there\".  Semaphores will no longer\ncontend with other irqlock users on SMP systems, but all semaphores\nare still sharing the same lock.  Really we want semaphores to be\nindependently synchronized, but adding 4 bytes to every one (there are\na LOT of these things) for a separate spinlock is too much to pay.\n\nRather, a proper SMP-aware implementation would spin on the count\nvariable directly.  But let\u0027s not rock that boat quite yet.\n\nSigned-off-by: Andy Ross \u003candrew.j.ross@intel.com\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "7280497253b33e566c744321002a08536f816a6f",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "kernel/sem.c",
      "new_id": "e73b6543f92882904c927677818f2462b4d182f6",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "kernel/sem.c"
    }
  ]
}