From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754320AbbCIOzK (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:55:10 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:48964 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751408AbbCIOzH (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:55:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:54:53 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Matteo Semenzato Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Staging: rtl8188eu: fix double unlock Message-ID: <20150309145453.GB11015@mwanda> References: <1425742407-6619-1-git-send-email-mattew8898@gmail.com> <20150309091618.GA10964@mwanda> <1425910873.11323.20.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1425910873.11323.20.camel@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:21:13PM +0100, Matteo Semenzato wrote: > Il giorno lun, 09/03/2015 alle 12.16 +0300, Dan Carpenter ha scritto: > > Why is it a RESEND? > > > > RESEND is a bit rude because it implies that we messed up by ignoring > > your first email so you're sending us the exact same thing again. > > Sometimes rudeness is valid if people are ignoring good patches but you > > send the first email 4 minutes before sending the second email. > This patch is a RESEND because i forgot to remove PATCH 2/2 from the subject. > > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 04:33:27PM +0100, Matteo Semenzato wrote: > > > From: Matteo Semenzato > > > > No need for this, we can get it from your email. > > > > > > > > The rtw_cmd_thread semaphore was being unlocked twice. > > > > This patch is probably correct, but it's a bit risky without testing or > > further analysis. Please explain how you verified that it won't cause > > a deadlock. > This patch is wrong because it tries to call down on a semaphore that is > initialized to 0 and the semaphore is not unlocked anywhere else. Yep. Just remove the locking and use kthread_stop() in rtw_stop_drv_threads(). regards, dan carpenter