From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] qla2xxx: firmware semaphore to mutex Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:33:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20080428193334.GD9907@elte.hu> References: <20080428174742.163523860@mvista.com> <20080428180846.GX14990@parisc-linux.org> <1209409033.12461.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080428190425.GY14990@parisc-linux.org> <1209410518.12461.71.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080428192416.GZ14990@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:46372 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966892AbYD1Te2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:34:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080428192416.GZ14990@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Daniel Walker , James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, linux-driver@qlogic.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org * Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:21:58PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > Don't you need to return the -EINTR so the caller knows the nature of > > the failure? You might also need to re-factor the caller of this > > function so it properly reports the failure to userspace .. In this case > > your just returning NULL .. > > The signal is _fatal_. Userspace doesn't get to check the return > value. It's dead. i agree with your change, nevertheless Daniel is right in that the change should be in a separate patch. "sem2mutex" patches are supposed to be NOP-ish patches, with nothing else mixed in. Ingo