Hello, (dropping some unrelated e-mail addresses from Cc) On 06/11/13 10:07, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 11/06/13 09:24, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote: >> From: Ricardo Ribalda <ricardo.ribalda@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> vb2_fop_relase does not held the lock although it is modifying the > > Small typo: _relase -> _release > >> queue->owner field. >> [...] >> >> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ricardo.ribalda@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> v2: Comments by Sylvester Nawrocki >> >> fimc-capture and fimc-lite where calling vb2_fop_release with the lock held. >> Therefore a new __vb2_fop_release function has been created to be used by >> drivers that overload the release function. >> >> v3: Comments by Sylvester Nawrocki and Mauro Carvalho Chehab >> >> Use vb2_fop_release_locked instead of __vb2_fop_release >> >> v4: Comments by Sylvester Nawrocki >> >> Rename vb2_fop_release_locked to __vb2_fop_release and fix patch format >> >> v5: Comments by Sylvester Nawrocki and Hans Verkuil >> >> Rename __vb2_fop_release to vb2_fop_release_unlock and rearrange >> arguments > > I know I suggested the vb2_fop_release_unlock name, but on second thoughts > that's not a good name. I suggest vb2_fop_release_no_lock instead. > '_unlock' suggests that there is a _lock version as well, which isn't the > case here. Yes. Sorry, but to me vb2_fop_release_no_lock() looks s bit ugly. Couldn't we just use double underscore prefix instead of _no_lock postfix, as is commonly done in the kernel ? Grep reveals almost no use of "_no_lock" in function names. Thanks, Sylwester -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
