Hi Juuso,
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 12:48 +0100, juuso.oikarinen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c
> index 9076555..863e660 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c
> @@ -917,12 +917,10 @@ out:
> return ret;
> }
>
> -int wl1271_plt_stop(struct wl1271 *wl)
> +int __wl1271_plt_stop(struct wl1271 *wl)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> - mutex_lock(&wl->mutex);
> -
> wl1271_notice("power down");
>
> if (wl->state != WL1271_STATE_PLT) {
> @@ -938,12 +936,21 @@ int wl1271_plt_stop(struct wl1271 *wl)
> wl->state = WL1271_STATE_OFF;
> wl->rx_counter = 0;
>
> -out:
> mutex_unlock(&wl->mutex);
> -
> cancel_work_sync(&wl->irq_work);
> cancel_work_sync(&wl->recovery_work);
> + mutex_lock(&wl->mutex);
> +out:
> + return ret;
> +}
Again we have this kind of unlock-lock case. Wouldn't it be better to
move the cancel_work calls outside this function and call them after
__wl1271_plt_stop() has returned? Yeah, there will be duplicate code if
we do this, but I think it's a bit safer, isn't it?
--
Cheers,
Luca.
--
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
