Yes, you are correct, we need this patch.
Acked-by: Corey Minyard <[email protected]>
Thanks.
Tomas Henzl wrote:
> It looks like there is an unbalance with the mutexes after the latest
> IPMI patchset applied. For example in
> "static __devinit int init_ipmi_si(void)"
> ....
> list_for_each_entry(e, &smi_infos, link) {
> if (!e->irq && (!type || e->addr_source == type)) {
> if (!try_smi_init(e)) {
> type = e->addr_source;
> }
> }
> }
> mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock);
>
> we are calling mutex_unlock twice, because the mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock)
> is also called from try_smi_init.
>
> If the lock in try_smi_init is not needed this can be then solved
> by removing the mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock) from try_smi_init.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomas Henzl <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> index 8d7b879..c6af8e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> @@ -3060,8 +3060,6 @@ static int try_smi_init(struct smi_info *new_smi)
> goto out_err_stop_timer;
> }
>
> - mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock);
> -
> printk(KERN_INFO "IPMI %s interface initialized\n",
> si_to_str[new_smi->si_type]);
>
> @@ -3111,8 +3109,6 @@ static int try_smi_init(struct smi_info *new_smi)
> new_smi->dev_registered = 0;
> }
>
> - mutex_unlock(&smi_infos_lock);
> -
> return rv;
> }
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Openipmi-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
