From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752825AbbCKJJg (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 05:09:36 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:43139 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752012AbbCKJJd (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 05:09:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:09:11 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com, teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] staging: sm750fb: Spinlock and unlock in the same block Message-ID: <20150311090911.GW10964@mwanda> References: <1426037325-8392-1-git-send-email-lstoakes@gmail.com> <1426037325-8392-6-git-send-email-lstoakes@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1426037325-8392-6-git-send-email-lstoakes@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:28:45AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > -static inline void myspin_lock(spinlock_t * sl){ > - struct lynx_share * share; > - share = container_of(sl,struct lynx_share,slock); > - if(share->dual){ > - spin_lock(sl); > - } > -} Yes, good. We all hate locking wrappers but these are worse than normal. > + /* if not use spin_lock,system will die if user load driver > + * and immediatly unload driver frequently (dual)*/ > + if (share->dual) { > + spin_lock(&share->slock); > + share->accel.de_fillrect(&share->accel, > + base,pitch,Bpp, > + region->dx,region->dy, > + region->width,region->height, > + color,rop); > + spin_unlock(&share->slock); > + } else > + share->accel.de_fillrect(&share->accel, > + base,pitch,Bpp, > + region->dx,region->dy, > + region->width,region->height, > + color,rop); > } No. You've made the code uglier to work around Sparse stupidness. Also the braces are not according to kernel style. if (share->dual) spin_lock(&share->slock); share->accel.de_fillrect(&share->accel, base,pitch,Bpp, region->dx,region->dy, region->width,region->height, color,rop); if (share->dual) spin_unlock(&share->slock); Sparse will still complain but no one cares. regards,