[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090430144840.6605e564.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:48:40 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mchehab@...radead.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dvb-core: Fix potential mutex_unlock without mutex_lock
in dvb_dvr_read
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:42:06 +0100
Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dmxdev.c b/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dmxdev.c
> >> index c35fbb8..d6d098a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dmxdev.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dmxdev.c
> >> @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static ssize_t dvb_dvr_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count,
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> if (dmxdev->exit) {
> >> - mutex_unlock(&dmxdev->mutex);
> >> + //mutex_unlock(&dmxdev->mutex);
> >> return -ENODEV;
> >> }
> >
> > Is there any value in retaining all the commented-out lock operations,
> > or can we zap 'em?
>
> I'm assuming they should really be there - it's just not practical
> because the call to dvb_dmxdev_buffer_read is likely to block waiting
> for data.
well.. such infomation is much better communicated via a nice comment,
rather than mystery-dead-code?
--
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