Hello Markus, On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 02:30:42PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > > In the old code (e.g.) mutex_destroy() was called before > > pwmchip_remove(). Between these two calls it is possible that a pwm > > callback is used which tries to grab the mutex. > > How do you think about to add a more “imperative mood” for your > change description? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=31f4f5b495a62c9a8b15b1c3581acd5efeb9af8c#n151 I described the old behaviour and like my wording. > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c > > @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > { > > struct pwm_omap_dmtimer_chip *omap = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = pwmchip_remove(&omap->chip); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > > > if (pm_runtime_active(&omap->dm_timer_pdev->dev)) > > omap->pdata->stop(omap->dm_timer); > > How do you think about to use the following statement variant? > > + int ret = pwmchip_remove(&omap->chip); I think that between the declarations and code should be an empty line and between the assignment to ret and the respective check there shouldn't be one. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
