On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:50:58AM -0400, Devendra Naga wrote:
> when down_interruptible fail, means a signal occur, or any other failure
> we are panicing, and it seems that we should not panic, instead we would
> have done a spinlock, but currently removing the panic call.
>
> Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <devendra.aaru@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/csr/csr_framework_ext.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/csr/csr_framework_ext.c b/drivers/staging/csr/csr_framework_ext.c
> index e203f60..e62878e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/csr/csr_framework_ext.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/csr/csr_framework_ext.c
> @@ -82,7 +82,6 @@ CsrResult CsrMutexLock(CsrMutexHandle *mutexHandle)
>
> if (down_interruptible(mutexHandle))
> {
> - CsrPanic(CSR_TECH_FW, CSR_PANIC_FW_UNEXPECTED_VALUE, "CsrMutexLock Failed");
This is fine, I'll remove this. But notice that no one ever calls
CsrMutexLock() so you can just remove this whole function now as well.
Can you send a follow-on patch to do that?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
