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    [W:0.026 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site