On 03/11/2016 08:22 PM, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:40:11AM -0600, Gary R Hook wrote:
@@ -128,14 +128,14 @@ static struct ccp_device *ccp_get_device(void)
*/
read_lock_irqsave(&ccp_unit_lock, flags);
if (!list_empty(&ccp_units)) {
- write_lock_irqsave(&ccp_rr_lock, flags);
+ write_lock_irqsave(&ccp_rr_lock, rrflags);
The right thing to do is to drop the _irqsave on the inner lock.
Also why is this a write lock at all as nobody seems to take it
as a read lock?
Roger on the _irqsave.
As for this being a read-write lock: an optimization during development
removed the need for a read acquisition. This use of the lock was
overlooked, and now only needs to be a spin lock.
Since the function of this patch has changed, and the subject line
should be different, do you prefer a v2 patch, or a new patch? This one
can be ignored, of course.
Gary
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
