From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f54.google.com (mail-ej1-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21B972 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 10:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id u3so11839681ejz.1 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 03:16:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OObiD9tfxs+s0iJrcszx/14HnrEBww2v71TAAgjIBnY=; b=fbehOLG3kvr6qqkot/u6Oufc9xBr2WwKQBpnfDVd5gxR8ORjn65b1Gqp5D70M2QZzB h9uh8M5WI5+3QrbtBjb1WGeSj0EMKzHNyx4dh4AnvdmKicPclg7wXUXOQrfWmKt5iqva ghmf8o4qzk15CBvOS4mJVGc+g0bcqyH2rd4xL3epMqsZm/CPYbAk9l09ORkJ8NJBdpmy 20pd8UJSyxTs12vYtfqAOcfPQKtBhSf9bAiz/E99zqf6FA/qgiLDCvbro4YPhx7IBBiw z2PlwC18ub9u7XUjGR/0iXCqgaPWcRzaeQeeiBMVxCJyZ8WoADYMxSQxj6+1pG+lT9Wo /FMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OObiD9tfxs+s0iJrcszx/14HnrEBww2v71TAAgjIBnY=; b=dzVk8dUPfm5YjAHCVvaVixst2GUTe3x42axH5HxX0QICZNikRV5LKJhwcvaEBm9OSK zIPhX+19x47hRJf/SZQYr9OOurw1lTtkFoiWCz1E6mfbOGJrLMsX7xa9ON/rJqi8+zyp DZVKCI5OXPEZDZyzuBj1IwS+x51Q12hIUIvOC7w6SLtJIa0XqBm12ExgdailRPFrOkpa OELdoWmUFN5eUWafybK5pWMYfQpU8RT+wXmDmV8OYR/p5ctBzTH4RTIufu3yP2/uuWeM Uc4EKl6IvpgaoTixImMUE7lu13zO7b6p5R7j6tlOsOUmbzYiEYrETOTabvtTv8cdxIbr a6Vg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tQ1qOmET4qagbvrOz353MoOtzFIN9LXXO19CE/zOyau6/+KHv q51X35nFxg+CWnuBV4NhQ8U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqFE3r/g7wpG5lgxYD34pDQhp9o+vfOXzd8BR7z69QZ8n26RhlItY/M+EBM4ObnLuO4p/2Hw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3f14:: with SMTP id hq20mr14847440ejc.370.1629368165250; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 03:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (host-79-22-100-164.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.22.100.164]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id br16sm1068789ejb.34.2021.08.19.03.16.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 03:16:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Larry Finger , Phillip Potter , Martin Kaiser , Michael Straube , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove _enter/_exit_critical_mutex() Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:16:03 +0200 Message-ID: <2072985.qfodHclbUl@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <4394431.3q0Da8apZE@localhost.localdomain> References: <20210819060837.23983-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> <4394431.3q0Da8apZE@localhost.localdomain> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday, August 19, 2021 9:07:20 AM CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:30:21 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 08:08:37AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > > Remove _enter_critical_mutex() and _exit_critical_mutex(). They are > > > unnecessary wrappers, respectively to mutex_lock_interruptible and to > > > mutex_unlock(). They also have an odd interface that takes an unused > > > second parameter "unsigned long *pirqL". > > > > > > Use directly the in-kernel API; check and manage the return value of > > > mutex_lock_interruptible(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 5 +++-- > > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_ops_linux.c | 7 +++++-- > > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/osdep_service.h | 13 ------------- > > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/os_intfs.c | 5 +++-- > > > 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c > > > index f6ee72d5af09..484083468ebb 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c > > > @@ -4358,7 +4358,8 @@ s32 dump_mgntframe_and_wait_ack(struct adapter *padapter, struct xmit_frame *pmg > > > if (padapter->bSurpriseRemoved || padapter->bDriverStopped) > > > return -1; > > > > > > - _enter_critical_mutex(&pxmitpriv->ack_tx_mutex, NULL); > > > + if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&pxmitpriv->ack_tx_mutex)) > > > + return -EINTR; > > > > But the code never would return this value if the lock function returned > > an error. Why do that here now? Ah, now I think I understand what you asked me ... sorry for not having immediately grasped the meaning of your objection. :( I guess you wanted to know why I decided to check and handle the return values of mutex_lock_interruptible (), as the original code didn't. Did I understand the correct meaning of your question? If so, now I can explain why I did it ... A few months ago I did the conversion of the visorhba (Unisys) driver from IDR to XArray. Since the old code did not check IDR API return values, I had decided not to check for XArray API return values as well. Then Dan C. asked me to implement the checks that were missing in the original code. So, today I decided to implement them before I was asked to do it. Now it's clear that in this case they are not needed. That's all. :-) I'm about to send a v2 without those unnecessary checks. Thanks, Fabio > I read from the documentation that "[mutex_lock_interruptible()] Return: 0 if > the lock was successfully acquired or -EINTR if a signal arrived.". > > After reading that, I thought that if I got -EINTR I should return it. Shouldn't I? > > Now I've just checked its usage pattern in another file where we have exactly 12 > times the same management of the error (the example I'm talking about is in > drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c): > > "if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&instance->vchiq_mutex)) > return -EINTR;". > > Unless you mean that I should return the "ret" variable, which is already set to > "_FAIL", I am really confused. Please, can you further elaborate what I'm doing > wrong? > > Thanks, > > Fabio