[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHFooZWlC+PV1kV0@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:58:09 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] char: xilinx_hwicap: use DEFINE_MUTEX() for mutex
lock
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 05:51:36PM +0800, Ye Bin wrote:
> mutex lock can be initialized automatically with DEFINE_MUTEX()
> rather than explicitly calling mutex_init().
>
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
> index 067396bedf22..4d586233dfa4 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/xilinx_hwicap/xilinx_hwicap.c
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
> /* An array, which is set to true when the device is registered. */
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(hwicap_mutex);
> static bool probed_devices[HWICAP_DEVICES];
> -static struct mutex icap_sem;
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(icap_sem);
>
> static struct class *icap_class;
>
> @@ -857,7 +857,6 @@ static int __init hwicap_module_init(void)
> int retval;
>
> icap_class = class_create(THIS_MODULE, "xilinx_config");
> - mutex_init(&icap_sem);
>
> devt = MKDEV(XHWICAP_MAJOR, XHWICAP_MINOR);
> retval = register_chrdev_region(devt,
>
What actually does this help out with? Why is it wrong to explicitly
call mutex_init() instead of a magic macro?
What good are these changes causing?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists