On Friday 23 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:48:38 -0700 David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > + /* ... after we unbound from the underlying device? */ > > + spin_lock_irq(&spidev->spi_lock); > > + dofree = (spidev->spi == NULL); > > + spin_unlock_irq(&spidev->spi_lock); > > + > > + if (dofree) > > + kfree(spidev); > > that's very weird-looking code.
Just sticking to the locking policy that access to that field is always protected by that lock ... "clearly OK", even if it might be a bit on the overkill side. I'd rather be consistent in that than have to worry about whether, in this one path, it's OK to switch to a different policy since something else ensures that didn't race with spidev_remove(). - Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ spi-devel-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
