On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:16:51PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > There is a return in the middle where we haven't restored the IRQs to
> > their original state.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/mx3_camera.c b/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/mx3_camera.c
> > index 1047e3e..4bae910 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/mx3_camera.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/mx3_camera.c
> > @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ static void mx3_videobuf_queue(struct vb2_buffer *vb)
> > if (!mx3_cam->active)
> > mx3_cam->active = buf;
> >
> > - spin_unlock_irq(&mx3_cam->lock);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mx3_cam->lock, flags);
> >
> > cookie = txd->tx_submit(txd);
> > dev_dbg(icd->parent, "Submitted cookie %d DMA 0x%08x\n",
>
> Please, wait with this. The above doesn't seem quite right to me. IIRC,
> the purpose of unlock_irq(), i.e. of the unconditionally enabling IRQs was
> to make sure ->tx_submit() is called with interrupts enabled. I'm
> currently on holiday with very scarce internet access. Either please
> double-check this yourself or I'll have another look at it when back home
> next week.
>
No problem. This is static checker stuff. The currect code is
definitely wrong because the return in the middle. When the
function returns we don't know if IRQs are enabled or not.
> > @@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ static void mx3_videobuf_queue(struct vb2_buffer *vb)
> > if (cookie >= 0)
> > return;
^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > - spin_lock_irq(&mx3_cam->lock);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&mx3_cam->lock, flags);
I thought about using local_irq_restore(flags) but it seemed like
an obvious oversight.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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
