[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47C2796F.2070601@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:16:47 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To: Stephen Neuendorffer <stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com>
CC: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
git-dev <git-dev@...inx.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Xilinx: hwicap: cleanup
On 02/25/2008 12:21 AM, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
>>> @@ -549,8 +556,7 @@ static int hwicap_release(struct inode *inode,
> struct file *file)
>>> int i;
>>> int status = 0;
>>>
>>> - if (down_interruptible(&drvdata->sem))
>>> - return -ERESTARTSYS;
>>> + mutex_lock(&drvdata->sem);
>> Why not mutex_lock_interruptible()? (goes for all cases of
> mutex_lock())
>
> It's not clear to me how to get 'correct' behavior in these functions if
> the interrupt happens. For instance in probe/setup, if the mutex_lock
> is interrupted, it doesn't appear that there is anything to do other
> than return an error code that no device is present? I think this was
> suggested by Jiri...
Yeah, since ERESTARTSYS would be ignored from f_op->release (see __fput()),
drv->probe (see really_probe() and probe_failed label); not even talking about
void return value functions. In those cases, the device won't be de/initialized
and might result in unwanted behaviour (multiple modprobes for one device,
rmmod/insmod need if you hit the path in release etc.).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists