[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110328181151.GB28494@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:11:51 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from
regulator_enable
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:34:41AM -0700, David Collins wrote:
Review curtailed by me having to dash off but one comment...
> -/* locks held by regulator_enable() */
> +/* Locks are *not* held by regulator_enable(). */
> static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> {
> - int ret, delay;
> + struct regulator_dev *supply_rdev = NULL;
> + int ret = 0, delay;
>
> + mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
This is going to be terribly confusing - the _ versions of the functions
all by convention rely on their callers taking the mutex, allowing them
to be safely used from internal APIs.
--
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