[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <57874F5F.5050000@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:37:51 +0800
From: xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com,
alan@...ux.intel.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: [PATCH V2 RESEND] tty/n_gsm.c: use gsm->num to remove mux itself
from gsm_mux[]
From: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
There is one filed gsm->num to store mux's index of gsm_mux[]. So use
gsm->num to remove itself from gsm_mux[] instead of the for-loop
traverse in gsm_cleanup_mux().
Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
---
change from V1:
lock is also held for the if()
---
drivers/tty/n_gsm.c | 13 +++++--------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c b/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
index 9aff371..697b31e 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
@@ -2038,16 +2038,13 @@ static void gsm_cleanup_mux(struct gsm_mux *gsm)
gsm->dead = 1;
spin_lock(&gsm_mux_lock);
- for (i = 0; i < MAX_MUX; i++) {
- if (gsm_mux[i] == gsm) {
- gsm_mux[i] = NULL;
- break;
- }
- }
- spin_unlock(&gsm_mux_lock);
/* open failed before registering => nothing to do */
- if (i == MAX_MUX)
+ if (gsm_mux[gsm->num] != gsm) {
+ spin_unlock(&gsm_mux_lock);
return;
+ }
+ gsm_mux[gsm->num] = NULL;
+ spin_unlock(&gsm_mux_lock);
/* In theory disconnecting DLCI 0 is sufficient but for some
modems this is apparently not the case. */
--
1.9.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists