On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Mark Hounschell <markh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 01:20 PM, Lidza Louina wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:48:38PM -0400, Lidza Louina wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -static int dgap_tty_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *file,
>>>> unsigned int cmd,
>>>> +static int dgap_tty_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned int cmd,
>>>> unsigned long arg)
>>>
>>>
>>> Btw, now that this file compiles I see it in my static checker runs.
>>>
>>> dgap_tty_ioctl() takes a lock but always returns before unlocking.
>>>
>>>> {
>>>> struct board_t *bd;
>>>> @@ -3423,41 +3423,6 @@ static int dgap_tty_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty,
>>>> struct file *file, unsigned in
>>>>
>>>> return(-ENOIOCTLCMD);
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, these return statements should be breaks so we hit
>>> the call to:
>>>
>>> DGNC_UNLOCK(ch->ch_lock, lock_flags);
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I looked thru the code a few times, and it seems like
>> it unlocks before every return. Can you paste an example
>> where it does this?
>>
>
> FYI, there is no DGNC_UNLOCK in the dgap driver? Maybe he was looking at the
> dgnc while commenting on the dgap??? Just a guess.
>
> Mark
Ah, ok, I don't see anything unusual in that file either. I'll wait
to see what he was talking about.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
