Dne St 26. května 2010 17:56:14 Julia Lawall napsal(a): > From: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx> > > Add a spin_unlock_irqrestore missing on the error path. Although the lock > is destroyed with the rest of the sachip structure in the function > __sa1111_remove, it still seems useful to restore the interrupt state. > > The semantic match that finds this problem is as follows: > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > // <smpl> > @@ > expression E1; > @@ > > * spin_lock_irqsave(E1,...); > <+... when != E1 > if (...) { > ... when != E1 > * return ...; > } > ...+> > * spin_unlock_irqrestore(E1,...); > // </smpl> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx> > > --- > Perhaps the unlock is now too early? > > arch/arm/common/sa1111.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c b/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c > index a52a27c..59e38ff 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c > +++ b/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c > @@ -959,6 +959,7 @@ static int sa1111_resume(struct platform_device *dev) > */ > id = sa1111_readl(sachip->base + SA1111_SKID); > if ((id & SKID_ID_MASK) != SKID_SA1111_ID) { > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sachip->lock, flags); > __sa1111_remove(sachip); > platform_set_drvdata(dev, NULL); > kfree(save); Why are "readl"s protected by spinlock anyway ? Can't we just move the locking past the code above ? I'm no sa1111 expert though, Russell ? Cheers > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
