Is any part of the patch going to be applied? I mentioned this problem in September last year and it looks like it's existed for years (the semaphore locking did the same thing). On 24/02/07 19:03, Simon Arlott wrote:
On 24/02/07 18:48, Andreas Oberritter wrote:Hi Simon, Simon Arlott wrote:@@ -673,13 +672,8 @@ static int dvb_demux_open(struct inode * static int dvb_dmxdev_filter_free(struct dmxdev *dmxdev, struct dmxdev_filter *dmxdevfilter) { - if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&dmxdev->mutex)) - return -ERESTARTSYS; - - if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&dmxdevfilter->mutex)) { - mutex_unlock(&dmxdev->mutex); - return -ERESTARTSYS; - } + mutex_lock(&dmxdev->mutex); + mutex_lock_interruptible(&dmxdevfilter->mutex);Assuming that the rest of the patch is OK, shouldn't this be a mutex_lock(), too, if the return value will be ignored?Argh. Sorry, I accidentally reverted my changes and quickly went through them all again so yes, it should have been mutex_lock(). I should now change that on my running copy... which has somehow kept working.Regards, Andreas
-- Simon Arlott
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
