Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove _enter/_exit_critical_mutex()

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:16:03PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> 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 <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  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?

Yes, that is correct.