Re: [PATCH 08/15] drm/radeon: cleanup: drm_modeset_lock_all() --> DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > +	struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
> >  	int i, r;
> > +	int ret;
> 
> Could you please tuck this up with i & r?

Done!


> > -	drm_modeset_unlock_all(dev);
> > +	DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_END(dev, ctx, ret);
> 
> You should check ret here

Would it be save to return at this point if the lock fails?

In other words, can I just add this? --> "if (ret) return ret;"


> > +	struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
> >  	int r;
> > +	int ret;
> 
> Same suggestion here, move up with r

Done!


> > -		drm_modeset_unlock_all(dev);
> > +		DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_END(dev, ctx, ret);
> 
> Also check ret here

Same question. Would "if (ret) return ret;" be safe here?


> >  	int i;
> > +	int ret;
> 
> Move up with i

Done!


> > -	drm_modeset_unlock_all(dev);
> > +	DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_END(dev, ctx, ret);
> >  	return 0;

I can also "return ret;" instead of "0".

What happens when a DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE'd function returns non-zero? Is it ok?
Or do we want to always return "0" to print whatever we can?





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux