| Message ID | 1436205678-31640-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > Hi > > On Jul 6, 2015 8:01 PM, "Felipe Balbi" <balbi@ti.com> wrote: > > > > on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it > > fails, it will leave dev->power.wakeirq set to a > > dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make > > sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() > > has chance to succeed. > > > > Cc: Tony Lindgren <tmlind@atomide.com> > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> > > --- > > drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 ++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, > int irq, > > > > err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); > > if (err) > > - return err; > > + goto err_cleanup; > > > > return 0; > > + > > +err_cleanup: > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags); > > + dev->power.wakeirq = NULL; > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags); > > + > > Why here and not in the fuction that return the error? because the field was set here, why would I clear it elsewhere ?
Hi On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Jul 6, 2015 8:01 PM, "Felipe Balbi" <balbi@ti.com> wrote: >> > >> > on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it >> > fails, it will leave dev->power.wakeirq set to a >> > dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make >> > sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() >> > has chance to succeed. >> > >> > Cc: Tony Lindgren <tmlind@atomide.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> >> > --- >> > drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 ++++++++- >> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c >> > index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c >> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c >> > @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, >> int irq, >> > >> > err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); >> > if (err) >> > - return err; >> > + goto err_cleanup; >> > >> > return 0; >> > + >> > +err_cleanup: >> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags); >> > + dev->power.wakeirq = NULL; >> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags); >> > + >> >> Why here and not in the fuction that return the error? > > because the field was set here, why would I clear it elsewhere ? > Clear now and even more from the other patch proposal. Michael > -- > balbi
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, int irq, err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); if (err) - return err; + goto err_cleanup; return 0; + +err_cleanup: + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags); + dev->power.wakeirq = NULL; + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags); + + return err; } /**
on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it fails, it will leave dev->power.wakeirq set to a dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() has chance to succeed. Cc: Tony Lindgren <tmlind@atomide.com> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> --- drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)