From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Owens Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:47:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] IA64: only call up() in salinfo_work_to_do() if down_trylock() was successful Message-Id: <1163.1217335629@ocs10w> List-Id: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:47:20 +1000." <20080729094718.GA5247@verge.net.au> References: <20080729094718.GA5247@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20080729094718.GA5247@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Simon Horman Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck Simon Horman (on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:47:20 +1000) wrote: >Aesthetic issues aside is it safe to call up() if down_trylock() failed? > >arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c: In function `salinfo_work_to_do': >arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c:195: warning: ignoring return value of `down_trylock' > >Signed-off-by: Simon Horman > >Index: linux-2.6/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c >=================================>--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c 2008-07-29 19:06:33.000000000 +1000 >+++ linux-2.6/arch/ia64/kernel/salinfo.c 2008-07-29 19:40:02.000000000 +1000 >@@ -192,8 +192,8 @@ struct salinfo_platform_oemdata_parms { > static void > salinfo_work_to_do(struct salinfo_data *data) > { >- down_trylock(&data->mutex); >- up(&data->mutex); >+ if (down_trylock(&data->mutex) = 0) >+ up(&data->mutex); > } > > static void NAK. The whole point of this function is to set the mutex to the up state, irrespective of whether it was already down or not. Tracking the state of data->mutex in all the possible contexts is just too fragile, especially since it can be modified from NMI context. salinfo_work_to_do() ensures that the mtuex ends in the up state. To remove the warning, just stick '(void)' in front of down_trylock().