On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 09:43:35AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 02:57:29PM +0530, Chandra S Gorentla wrote: > > The spin_lock_irqsave is moved to just beginning of critical section. > > This change moves a couple of return statements out of the lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandra S Gorentla <csgorentla@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > > index d5ebd6d..284a3f5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > > @@ -72,8 +72,6 @@ int wilc_mq_send(WILC_MsgQueueHandle *pHandle, > > goto ERRORHANDLER; > > } > > > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&pHandle->strCriticalSection, flags); > > - > > /* construct a new message */ > > pstrMessage = kmalloc(sizeof(Message), GFP_ATOMIC); > > As you have moved the lock, can you also change this to GFP_KERNEL as > well because we do not have a lock held? Can 'the change to GFP_KERNEL' be done in a separate patch? The lock is to protect linked list manipulations; in this function items are added to the list. > > And how have you tested that this is ok? What is this lock trying to > protect? I load this module on a notebook computer. I added some code to wilc_debugfs.c to invoke the functions in the file wilc_msgqueue.c > > thanks, > > greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
