On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:14:28PM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 04-Feb-19 23:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Since another rename could be running in parallel it is safer to check
> > that the name is not changing inside the lock, where we already know the
> > device name will not change.
> >
> > Fixes: d21943dd19b5 ("RDMA/core: Implement IB device rename function")
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > drivers/infiniband/core/device.c | 10 ++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/device.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/device.c
> > index 55221990d946b2..f9f33e842c16b6 100644
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/device.c
> > @@ -189,12 +189,14 @@ static struct ib_device *__ib_device_get_by_name(const char *name)
> >
> > int ib_device_rename(struct ib_device *ibdev, const char *name)
> > {
> > - int ret = 0;
> > -
> > - if (!strcmp(name, dev_name(&ibdev->dev)))
> > - return ret;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > mutex_lock(&device_mutex);
> > + if (!strcmp(name, dev_name(&ibdev->dev))) {
> > + ret = -EEXIST;
>
> Why did this change to an error?
Hmm.. Probably shouldn't change it - even though I think this version
is more appropriate.
Jason
