On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:00:37 +0300
Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
> On 4/19/21 8:08 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > About the title, better to speak about multi-process,
> > it is less confusing than primary/secondary.
> >
> > 15/03/2021 20:27, Stephen Hemminger:
> >> Set mutex used in failsafe driver to protect when used by
> >> both primary and secondary process. Without this fix, the failsafe
> >> lock is not really locking when there are multiple secondary processes.
> >>
> >> Bugzilla ID: 662
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> >> Fixes: 655fcd68c7d2 ("net/failsafe: fix hotplug races")
> >> Cc: ma...@mellanox.com
> >
> > The correct order for above lines is:
> >
> > Bugzilla ID: 662
> > Fixes: 655fcd68c7d2 ("net/failsafe: fix hotplug races")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> >
> >> ---
> >> --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
> >> @@ -140,6 +140,11 @@ fs_mutex_init(struct fs_priv *priv)
> >> ERROR("Cannot initiate mutex attributes - %s", strerror(ret));
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >> + /* Allow mutex to protect primary/secondary */
> >> + ret = pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + ERROR("Cannot set mutex shared - %s", strerror(ret));
> >
> > Why not returning an error here?
>
> +1
>
> I think it would be safer to return an error here.
Ok but it never happens.
