On 02/27/2014 04:52 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
This isn't a real patch, and it deliberately doesn't compile, but it's sort of what the patch should look like.The first thing to do is to get rid of the stupid DGAP_UNLOCK() macro. Disabling IRQs more than once doesn't help anything and it doesn't make sense to have lock_flags and lock_flags2. It should just be one "flags". I guess the function name should have something to do with "wake_up" but I just made up a dummy name. regards, dan carpenter diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgap/dgap.c b/drivers/staging/dgap/dgap.c index 7cb1ad597ced..41de09af27d1 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/dgap/dgap.c +++ b/drivers/staging/dgap/dgap.c @@ -6278,7 +6278,31 @@ static void dgap_parity_scan(struct channel_t *ch, unsigned char *cbuf, unsigned } +static void futz_with_un_flags(struct board_t *bd, struct channel_t *ch, + struct un_t *un, unsigned long *irq_flags) +{ + if (!(un->un_flags & UN_LOW)) + return; + + un->un_flags &= ~UN_LOW; + + if (!(un->un_flags & UN_ISOPEN)) + return; + + if ((un->un_tty->flags & (1 << TTY_DO_WRITE_WAKEUP)) && + un->un_tty->ldisc->ops->write_wakeup) { + spin_unlock(&ch->ch_lock); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bd->bd_lock, *irq_flags); + (un->un_tty->ldisc->ops->write_wakeup)(un->un_tty); + + spin_lock_irqsave(&bd->bd_lock, *irq_flags); + spin_lock(&ch->ch_lock); + } + wake_up_interruptible(&un->un_tty->write_wait); + wake_up_interruptible(&un->un_flags_wait); + DPR_EVENT(("event: Got low event. jiffies: %lu\n", jiffies)); +} /*======================================================================= * @@ -6442,44 +6466,8 @@ static int dgap_event(struct board_t *bd) DPR_EVENT(("event: got low event\n")); - if (ch->ch_tun.un_flags & UN_LOW) { - ch->ch_tun.un_flags &= ~UN_LOW; - - if (ch->ch_tun.un_flags & UN_ISOPEN) { - if ((ch->ch_tun.un_tty->flags & - (1 << TTY_DO_WRITE_WAKEUP)) && - ch->ch_tun.un_tty->ldisc->ops->write_wakeup) - { - DGAP_UNLOCK(ch->ch_lock, lock_flags2); - DGAP_UNLOCK(bd->bd_lock, lock_flags); - (ch->ch_tun.un_tty->ldisc->ops->write_wakeup)(ch->ch_tun.un_tty); - DGAP_LOCK(bd->bd_lock, lock_flags); - DGAP_LOCK(ch->ch_lock, lock_flags2); - } - wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_tun.un_tty->write_wait); - wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_tun.un_flags_wait); - - DPR_EVENT(("event: Got low event. jiffies: %lu\n", jiffies)); - } - } - - if (ch->ch_pun.un_flags & UN_LOW) { - ch->ch_pun.un_flags &= ~UN_LOW; - if (ch->ch_pun.un_flags & UN_ISOPEN) { - if ((ch->ch_pun.un_tty->flags & - (1 << TTY_DO_WRITE_WAKEUP)) && - ch->ch_pun.un_tty->ldisc->ops->write_wakeup) - { - DGAP_UNLOCK(ch->ch_lock, lock_flags2); - DGAP_UNLOCK(bd->bd_lock, lock_flags); - (ch->ch_pun.un_tty->ldisc->ops->write_wakeup)(ch->ch_pun.un_tty); - DGAP_LOCK(bd->bd_lock, lock_flags); - DGAP_LOCK(ch->ch_lock, lock_flags2); - } - wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_pun.un_tty->write_wait); - wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_pun.un_flags_wait); - } - } + futz_with_un_flags(bd, ch, &ch->ch_tun, &flags); + futz_with_un_flags(bd, ch, &ch->ch_pun, &flags); if (ch->ch_flags & CH_WLOW) { ch->ch_flags &= ~CH_WLOW;
Thanks Dan. I see what should be done. I like and can work on this. But is it OK to save all the 80 char problems until the end of this next series or more likely a separate patch all together? Since I'm trying to make individual patches that address specific checkpatch problems I am running into a chicken and egg sort of thing. Some of the next series will have checkpatch warnings/errors that are corrected in later patches.
Will this be OK? I think the review process will be much easier this way? Thanks Mark _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
