On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:47:09PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > Simon Horman (on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:47:20 +1000) wrote: > >Aesthetic issues aside is it safe to call up() if down_trylock() failed? > > > >arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c: In function `salinfo_work_to_do': > >arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c:195: warning: ignoring return value of `down_trylock' > > > >Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >Index: linux-2.6/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c > >=================================================================== > >--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c 2008-07-29 19:06:33.000000000 +1000 > >+++ linux-2.6/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c 2008-07-29 19:40:02.000000000 +1000 > >@@ -192,8 +192,8 @@ struct salinfo_platform_oemdata_parms { > > static void > > salinfo_work_to_do(struct salinfo_data *data) > > { > >- down_trylock(&data->mutex); > >- up(&data->mutex); > >+ if (down_trylock(&data->mutex) == 0) > >+ up(&data->mutex); > > } > > > > static void > > NAK. The whole point of this function is to set the mutex to the up > state, irrespective of whether it was already down or not. Tracking > the state of data->mutex in all the possible contexts is just too > fragile, especially since it can be modified from NMI context. > salinfo_work_to_do() ensures that the mtuex ends in the up state. > > To remove the warning, just stick '(void)' in front of down_trylock(). Thanks, will do. -- Horms -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |