Re: [PATCH 1/5] rfkill: use killable locks instead of interruptible

[Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@gmail.com>]

On Thursday 09 October 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Apparently, many applications don't expect to get EAGAIN from fd read/write
> operations, since POSIX doesn't mandate it.
> 
> Use mutex_lock_killable instead of mutex_lock_interruptible, which won't
> cause issues.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
> Cc: Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn@gmail.com>

> ---
>  net/rfkill/rfkill.c |    7 ++++---
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/rfkill/rfkill.c b/net/rfkill/rfkill.c
> index f949a48..08be968 100644
> --- a/net/rfkill/rfkill.c
> +++ b/net/rfkill/rfkill.c
> @@ -431,8 +431,9 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_state_store(struct device *dev,
>  	    state != RFKILL_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&rfkill->mutex))
> -		return -ERESTARTSYS;
> +	error = mutex_lock_killable(&rfkill->mutex);
> +	if (error)
> +		return error;
>  	error = rfkill_toggle_radio(rfkill, state, 0);
>  	mutex_unlock(&rfkill->mutex);
>  
> @@ -472,7 +473,7 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_claim_store(struct device *dev,
>  	 * Take the global lock to make sure the kernel is not in
>  	 * the middle of rfkill_switch_all
>  	 */
> -	error = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rfkill_global_mutex);
> +	error = mutex_lock_killable(&rfkill_global_mutex);
>  	if (error)
>  		return error;
>