On 24/02/07 18:48, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> Simon Arlott wrote:
>> @@ -673,13 +672,8 @@ static int dvb_demux_open(struct inode *
>>  static int dvb_dmxdev_filter_free(struct dmxdev *dmxdev,
>>                                struct dmxdev_filter *dmxdevfilter)
>>  {
>> -    if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&dmxdev->mutex))
>> -            return -ERESTARTSYS;
>> -
>> -    if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&dmxdevfilter->mutex)) {
>> -            mutex_unlock(&dmxdev->mutex);
>> -            return -ERESTARTSYS;
>> -    }
>> +    mutex_lock(&dmxdev->mutex);
>> +    mutex_lock_interruptible(&dmxdevfilter->mutex);
> 
> Assuming that the rest of the patch is OK, shouldn't this be a
> mutex_lock(), too, if the return value will be ignored?

Argh. Sorry, I accidentally reverted my changes and quickly went through them 
all again so yes, it should have been mutex_lock(). I should now change that on 
my running copy... which has somehow kept working.

> Regards,
> Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-dvb mailing list
> linux-dvb@linuxtv.org
> http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb


-- 
Simon Arlott

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
linux-dvb@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb

Reply via email to