Re: [PATCH] qla2xxx: firmware semaphore to mutex

Daniel Walker
2008-04-28T19:55:00Z

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 13:24 -0600, 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.

Kernel space does still observe the failure, right? Otherwise you
wouldn't return anything from mutex_lock_killable() .. If that's the
case just returning NULL , is like just injecting a failure.. I'm not
against adding mutex_lock_killable() , I'm just wondering if your
changes are complete in this case..

Daniel