From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:57531 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751305AbbJDKTW (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:19:22 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:19:18 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Chandra Gorentla Cc: rachel.kim@atmel.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, chris.park@atmel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, johnny.kim@atmel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dan.carpenter@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers: staging: wilc1000: Move spin lock to the start of critical section Message-ID: <20151004101918.GA13898@kroah.com> (sfid-20151004_122015_712782_ABDB986D) References: <1443864450-18167-1-git-send-email-csgorentla@gmail.com> <20151004084335.GA24589@kroah.com> <20151004100713.GA27051@gcs-HP-Notebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20151004100713.GA27051@gcs-HP-Notebook> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:37:13PM +0530, Chandra Gorentla wrote: > On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 09:43:35AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 02:57:29PM +0530, Chandra S Gorentla wrote: > > > The spin_lock_irqsave is moved to just beginning of critical section. > > > This change moves a couple of return statements out of the lock. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandra S Gorentla > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > > > index d5ebd6d..284a3f5 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c > > > @@ -72,8 +72,6 @@ int wilc_mq_send(WILC_MsgQueueHandle *pHandle, > > > goto ERRORHANDLER; > > > } > > > > > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&pHandle->strCriticalSection, flags); > > > - > > > /* construct a new message */ > > > pstrMessage = kmalloc(sizeof(Message), GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > As you have moved the lock, can you also change this to GFP_KERNEL as > > well because we do not have a lock held? > Can 'the change to GFP_KERNEL' be done in a separate patch? Yes. > The lock is to protect linked list manipulations; in this function items > are added to the list. Ok, please add that description to the patch so we know what is going on, and that you know what is going on as well :) thanks, greg k-h