[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D90D1DE.2030202@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:22:22 -0700
From: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
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 03/28/2011 11:11 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> -/* 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.
_regulator_enable is only being called within regulator_enable and
_regulator_enable. Would it remove the confusion to rename
_regulator_enable to something different?
-David
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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