On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 06:09 -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 12:20:17AM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-05-02 at 15:12 -0600, Heitke, Kenneth wrote:
> > > On 5/2/2019 5:47 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > +static void nvme_ext_queue_free(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl, u16 qid)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct nvme_dev *dev = to_nvme_dev(ctrl);
> > > > + struct nvme_queue *nvmeq;
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&dev->ext_dev_lock);
> > > > + nvmeq = &dev->queues[qid];
> > > > +
> > > > + if (WARN_ON(!test_bit(NVMEQ_EXTERNAL, &nvmeq->flags)))
> > > > + return;
> > >
> > > This condition is probably not expected to happen (since its a warning)
> > > but do you need to unlock the ext_dev_lock before returning?
> >
> > This is true, I will fix this. This used to be BUG_ON, but due to
> > checkpatch.pl
> > complains I turned them all to WARN_ON, and missed this.
>
> Gentle reminder to trim your replies to the relevant context. It's
> much easier to read when we don't need to scroll through hundreds of
> unnecessary lines.
I fully agree, sorry! Next time I will do this.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
