On Thursday, August 19, 2021 9:07:20 AM CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:30:21 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 08:08:37AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > > Remove _enter_critical_mutex() and _exit_critical_mutex(). They are > > > unnecessary wrappers, respectively to mutex_lock_interruptible and to > > > mutex_unlock(). They also have an odd interface that takes an unused > > > second parameter "unsigned long *pirqL". > > > > > > Use directly the in-kernel API; check and manage the return value of > > > mutex_lock_interruptible(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 5 +++-- > > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_ops_linux.c | 7 +++++-- > > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/osdep_service.h | 13 ------------- > > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c | 5 +++-- > > > 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c > > > index f6ee72d5af09..484083468ebb 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c > > > @@ -4358,7 +4358,8 @@ s32 dump_mgntframe_and_wait_ack(struct adapter *padapter, struct xmit_frame *pmg > > > if (padapter->bSurpriseRemoved || padapter->bDriverStopped) > > > return -1; > > > > > > - _enter_critical_mutex(&pxmitpriv->ack_tx_mutex, NULL); > > > + if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&pxmitpriv->ack_tx_mutex)) > > > + return -EINTR; > > > > But the code never would return this value if the lock function returned > > an error. Why do that here now? Ah, now I think I understand what you asked me ... sorry for not having immediately grasped the meaning of your objection. :( I guess you wanted to know why I decided to check and handle the return values of mutex_lock_interruptible (), as the original code didn't. Did I understand the correct meaning of your question? If so, now I can explain why I did it ... A few months ago I did the conversion of the visorhba (Unisys) driver from IDR to XArray. Since the old code did not check IDR API return values, I had decided not to check for XArray API return values as well. Then Dan C. asked me to implement the checks that were missing in the original code. So, today I decided to implement them before I was asked to do it. Now it's clear that in this case they are not needed. That's all. :-) I'm about to send a v2 without those unnecessary checks. Thanks, Fabio > I read from the documentation that "[mutex_lock_interruptible()] Return: 0 if > the lock was successfully acquired or -EINTR if a signal arrived.". > > After reading that, I thought that if I got -EINTR I should return it. Shouldn't I? > > Now I've just checked its usage pattern in another file where we have exactly 12 > times the same management of the error (the example I'm talking about is in > drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c): > > "if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&instance->vchiq_mutex)) > return -EINTR;". > > Unless you mean that I should return the "ret" variable, which is already set to > "_FAIL", I am really confused. Please, can you further elaborate what I'm doing > wrong? > > Thanks, > > Fabio
