On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 05:22:22PM +0200, Ursula Braun wrote:
>
> > 3b2dec260 Hans Wippel 2018-05-18 1282 /* finish worker */
> > c69342ef9 Ursula Braun 2018-09-18 1283 if (!ism_supported) {
> > c69342ef9 Ursula Braun 2018-09-18 1284 if (smc_listen_rdma_finish(new_smc, &cclc, local_contact))
> > c69342ef9 Ursula Braun 2018-09-18 1285 return;
> > ^^^^^^
> > We need to mutex_unlock(&smc_create_lgr_pending); before the return.
> >
>
> The smatch warning is not necessary, since the mutex_unlock(&smc_create_lgr_pending)
> for this case is done within smc_listen_rdma_finish().
>
> > c69342ef9 Ursula Braun 2018-09-18 1286 }
> > 3b2dec260 Hans Wippel 2018-05-18 1287 smc_conn_save_peer_info(new_smc, &cclc);
> > 3b2dec260 Hans Wippel 2018-05-18 1288 mutex_unlock(&smc_create_lgr_pending);
> > 3b2dec260 Hans Wippel 2018-05-18 @1289 smc_listen_out_connected(new_smc);
> > a046d57da Ursula Braun 2017-01-09 1290 }
> > a046d57da Ursula Braun 2017-01-09 1291
> >
> > ---
> > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
> >
>
> But you could argue the code confuses smatch and other readers. Thus I could improve
> readability with a patch like this:
Yes, please.
> ---
> net/smc/af_smc.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -1184,7 +1184,6 @@ static int smc_listen_rdma_finish(struct
> return 0;
>
> decline:
> - mutex_unlock(&smc_create_lgr_pending);
> smc_listen_decline(new_smc, reason_code, local_contact);
> return reason_code;
> }
The lonely mutex_unlock() also _looks_ like a bug ;)
