Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 2010 12:25:35 -0500 | From | Corey Minyard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ipm: fix mutex use |
| |
Yes, you are correct, we need this patch.
Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
Thanks.
Tomas Henzl wrote: > It looks like there is an unbalance with the mutexes after the latest > IPMI patchset applied. For example in > "static __devinit int init_ipmi_si(void)" > .... > list_for_each_entry(e, &smi_infos, link) { > if (!e->irq && (!type || e->addr_source == type)) { > if (!try_smi_init(e)) { > type = e->addr_source; > } > } > } > mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock); > > we are calling mutex_unlock twice, because the mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock) > is also called from try_smi_init. > > If the lock in try_smi_init is not needed this can be then solved > by removing the mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock) from try_smi_init. > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Henzl <thenzl@redhat.com> > > --- > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c > index 8d7b879..c6af8e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c > @@ -3060,8 +3060,6 @@ static int try_smi_init(struct smi_info *new_smi) > goto out_err_stop_timer; > } > > - mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock); > - > printk(KERN_INFO "IPMI %s interface initialized\n", > si_to_str[new_smi->si_type]); > > @@ -3111,8 +3109,6 @@ static int try_smi_init(struct smi_info *new_smi) > new_smi->dev_registered = 0; > } > > - mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock); > - > return rv; > } > > > >
| |