On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx>
>
> If this is not done we have a bogus ACPI_FAILURE() call.
>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpica/nsload.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsload.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsload.c
> index 5f7dc69..f3070fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsload.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsload.c
> @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ acpi_ns_load_table(u32 table_index, struct acpi_namespace_node *node)
> }
>
> unlock:
> - (void)acpi_ut_release_mutex(ACPI_MTX_NAMESPACE);
> + status = acpi_ut_release_mutex(ACPI_MTX_NAMESPACE);
No,
The status maybe set before the "goto unlock" statement.
Lin Ming
>
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> return_ACPI_STATUS(status);
> --
> 1.7.4.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
