On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:16:03PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > 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? Yes, that is correct.
