[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220531201125.46ecnnnzrqsqtejr@sx1>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 13:11:25 -0700
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH (mellanox tree)] net/mlx5: delete dead code in
mlx5_esw_unlock()
On 30 May 14:40, Dan Carpenter wrote:
You can use [PATCH net-mlx5] for fixes and [PATCH net-next-mlx5] for
none-critical commits.
>Smatch complains about this function:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c:2000 mlx5_esw_unlock()
> warn: inconsistent returns '&esw->mode_lock'.
>
>Before commit ec2fa47d7b98 ("net/mlx5: Lag, use lag lock") there
>used to be a matching mlx5_esw_lock() function and the lock and
>unlock functions were symmetric. But now we take the long
^ lock ?
>unconditionally and must unlock unconditionally as well.
>
>As near as I can tell this is dead code and can just be deleted.
>
>Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Fixed up the typo and applied to net-next-mlx5.
Thanks,
Saeed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists