Hi Hans, On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:22:45 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 01/21/2010 10:47 AM, Sven Anders wrote: > > There is one small problem left: > > > > If the watchdog_open() functions failes with EBUSY, we must not > > increase the counter. > > Oh, good catch that bug is present in the fschmd.c code too. Note that the > way you've fixed this with an unlock in the error path is sort of > frowned up on. It is correct, but we usually try to keep locks and unlocks > in balanced pairs, so that it is easy to check for missing unlocks. See the > patch I've done to fix this same issue for fschmd (attached). I'll go apply that patch right now. > > Please notify me, if I need to make some more changes or if you sent the patch > > upstream. > > Well, I don't have any path for sending patches directly upstream, Jean Delvare > usually does that for hwmon tree patches. I can ack this though, telling Jean > it has been reviewed by me and I don't see any more issues. Yes, if the patch is acked by Hans, I'll pick it. > (...) > And I think Jean might fall over the balanced lock unlock thingie, Jean ? I don't care either way. As long as the code is correct, I'm fine. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
