* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [150706 15:49]: > On Monday, July 06, 2015 01:01:18 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: > > on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it > > fails, it will leave dev->power.wakeirq set to a > > dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make > > sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() > > has chance to succeed. > > > > Cc: Tony Lindgren <tmlind@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 ++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq, > > > > err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); > > if (err) > > - return err; > > + goto err_cleanup; > > > > return 0; > > + > > +err_cleanup: > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags); > > + dev->power.wakeirq = NULL; > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags); > > + > > + return err; > > } > > Too many labels for me and the fact that acquiring of the lock again in the error > patch doesn't look good. > > However, we can do the entire device_wakeup_attach_irq() under the lock (after > removing the locking from it), because we're its only caller. > > So what about the below instead (build-tested only)? Nice, still works for me and simplifies things: Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
