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 <csgoren...@gmail.com> > --- > 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? And how have you tested that this is ok? What is this lock trying to protect? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
