[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <913bb77c-6190-9ce7-a46d-906998866073@web.de>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 20:42:25 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Huazhong Tan <tanhuazhong@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
Yisen Zhuang <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] net: hns3: Destroy a mutex after initialisation
failure in hclge_init_ad_dev()
> Add a mutex destroy call in hclge_init_ae_dev() when fails.
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Change description:
The function “mutex_init” was called before a call of
the function “hclge_pci_init”.
But the function “mutex_destroy” was not called after initialisation
steps failed.
Thus add the missed function call for the completion of
the exception handling.
Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
…
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3pf/hclge_main.c
> @@ -10108,6 +10108,7 @@ static int hclge_init_ae_dev(struct hnae3_ae_dev *ae_dev)
> pci_release_regions(pdev);
> pci_disable_device(pdev);
> out:
> + mutex_destroy(&hdev->vport_lock);
> return ret;
> }
How do you think about to use the label “destroy_mutex” instead?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists