From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9FF2C4338F for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 14:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FA7610FE for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 14:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240629AbhHSOvq (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 10:51:46 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:45238 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240137AbhHSOvp (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 10:51:45 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B02CF60231; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 14:51:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1629384669; bh=mqlbbTGtIEi8G/JgjYJA5lBveLz8RQwPhrw58wj1KfM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MOE1dFTbUkDXVtxREFoFQplxUWsy9QqHcOYdzARpxHfIqAFuKOtzbqOVa4Rld4Bub EasZv/1aI14qf+vZFo+wCrKJZmaG6MDwzy0vkAOBhvmpiqnxjr4T2GqkRY5R7y+OTM 8OiMR5L6nW+JJ8590CnBm4FtTfIPJKqijBcvnBnA= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 16:51:05 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Fabio M. De Francesco" Cc: Larry Finger , Phillip Potter , Martin Kaiser , Michael Straube , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove _enter/_exit_critical_mutex() Message-ID: References: <20210819060837.23983-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> <4394431.3q0Da8apZE@localhost.localdomain> <2072985.qfodHclbUl@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2072985.qfodHclbUl@localhost.localdomain> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > --- > > > > 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.