[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFCUKTRvxhdOdzpNEgEDD6CrkioCgJ63DyMVVjWszYOmmQ46SA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:34:31 +0800
From: harvey yang <harvey.huawei.yang@...il.com>
To: Prashant Shah <kerneldev100@...il.com>
Cc: Matt Mooney <mfm@...eddisk.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] staging: usbip: remove an unnecessary lock in
usbip_event_happened. The variable "happened" is local. So I think there is
no need to lock here.
I think no need to make 'happened' static as we just check 'ud->event'
feild. Maybe making this function inline would make more sense.
inline int usbip_event_happened(struct usbip_device *ud)
{
return ud->event ? 1 : 0;
}
Thanks
Harvey
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Prashant Shah <kerneldev100@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> int happened = 0;
>>
>> - spin_lock(&ud->lock);
>> if (ud->event != 0)
>> happened = 1;
>> - spin_unlock(&ud->lock);
>>
>> return happened;
>
> I am guessing locking was intended to protect ud->event along with
> happened so that (checking the value of ud->event and setting value of
> happened) was atomic.
>
> return ud->event != 0 ? 1 : 0;
>
> Regards.
--
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