lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from regulator_enable
On 03/28/2011 11:11 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

>> -/* locks held by regulator_enable() */
>> +/* Locks are *not* held by regulator_enable(). */
>> static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>> {
>> - int ret, delay;
>> + struct regulator_dev *supply_rdev = NULL;
>> + int ret = 0, delay;
>>
>> + mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
>
> This is going to be terribly confusing - the _ versions of the functions
> all by convention rely on their callers taking the mutex, allowing them
> to be safely used from internal APIs.

_regulator_enable is only being called within regulator_enable and
_regulator_enable. Would it remove the confusion to rename
_regulator_enable to something different?

-David

--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-28 20:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans