[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOc6eta+QttyE_TJwLSTietCE2WiHEYgd-q8Bp-Xu1kdVDfnew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 07:55:51 -0600
From: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@...il.com>
To: "'w00385741" <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
Cc: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: stmmac: fix missing unlock on error in stmmac_suspend()
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:50 AM Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
<eantoranz@...il.com> wrote:
> I think you can let it go and check ret after unlocking:
>
> /* Disable clock in case of PWM is off */
> clk_disable_unprepare(priv->plat->clk_ptp_ref);
> ret = pm_runtime_force_suspend(dev);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&priv->lock);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
Oh, I C. It would require ret to be set to 0 before starting to use
it, right? Maybe it's worth it?
>
> priv->speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN;
> return 0;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists