Re: [PATCH next] wifi: rtw89: unlock on error path in rtw89_ops_unassign_vif_chanctx()

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 03:32:23AM +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> Zong-Zhe Yang <kevin_yang@realtek.com> wrote:
> > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > @@ -1373,6 +1373,7 @@ static void rtw89_ops_unassign_vif_chanctx(struct ieee80211_hw
> > > *hw,
> > >
> > >         rtwvif_link = rtwvif->links[link_conf->link_id];
> > >         if (unlikely(!rtwvif_link)) {
> > > +               mutex_unlock(&rtwdev->mutex);
> > >                 rtw89_err(rtwdev,
> > >                           "%s: rtwvif link (link_id %u) is not active\n",
> > >                           __func__, link_conf->link_id);
> > >
> > 
> > Acked-by: Zong-Zhe Yang <kevin_yang@realtek.com>
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the ack. 
> 
> Acked-by is often used by the maintainer, so I will change it to Reviewed-by
> during committing. 

To me Acked by just means you're okay with the patch.  When I use it, it means I
don't feel qualified or interested enough to do a full review.  For example, if
I complain about a v1 patch and they fix my issue in v2 then I like to say that
I'm okay with it.  In that case I'll use Reviewed-by for a full review or Acked
by if the bits that I care about are okay.  I don't like to complain and then
just go silent.

In the end, it doesn't make any difference.  You'll get CC'd on bug reports to
do with the patch and you'll potentially feel bad for not spotting the bug, I
guess.

regards,
dan carpenter