Hi Sanjeev, On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Sharma, Sanjeev <Sanjeev_Sharma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Johannes Berg [mailto:johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:42 PM > To: Sharma, Sanjeev > Cc: dsd@xxxxxxxxxx; kune@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] zd1211rw: replace ZD_ASSERT with lockdep_assert_held() > > On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 15:39 +0530, Sanjeev Sharma wrote: >> on some architecture spin_is_locked() always return false in >> uniprocessor configuration and therefore it would be advise to replace >> with lockdep_assert_held(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Sharma <Sanjeev_Sharma@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Changes in v2: >> - corrected the typo > >> Now it compiles, but you got the logic wrong. > >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c >> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ void zd_mac_clear(struct zd_mac *mac) { >> flush_workqueue(zd_workqueue); >> zd_chip_clear(&mac->chip); >> - ZD_ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&mac->lock)); >> + lockdep_assert_held(&mac->lock); >> ZD_MEMCLEAR(mac, sizeof(struct zd_mac)); } > >>Look closely at this again. > > I didn't understand where I put wrong logic ? I find it helps to spell out what code is doing in words. E.g. the line you're removing is: ZD_ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&mac->lock)); So, we'll assert when spin_is_locked(&mac->lock) is false, i.e. when mac->lock is not spin locked. This isn't the same as what you're replacing it with. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
