On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:21:13PM +0100, Matteo Semenzato wrote: > Il giorno lun, 09/03/2015 alle 12.16 +0300, Dan Carpenter ha scritto: > > Why is it a RESEND? > > > > RESEND is a bit rude because it implies that we messed up by ignoring > > your first email so you're sending us the exact same thing again. > > Sometimes rudeness is valid if people are ignoring good patches but you > > send the first email 4 minutes before sending the second email. > This patch is a RESEND because i forgot to remove PATCH 2/2 from the subject. > > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 04:33:27PM +0100, Matteo Semenzato wrote: > > > From: Matteo Semenzato <mattew8...@gmail.com> > > > > No need for this, we can get it from your email. > > > > > > > > The rtw_cmd_thread semaphore was being unlocked twice. > > > > This patch is probably correct, but it's a bit risky without testing or > > further analysis. Please explain how you verified that it won't cause > > a deadlock. > This patch is wrong because it tries to call down on a semaphore that is > initialized to 0 and the semaphore is not unlocked anywhere else.
Yep. Just remove the locking and use kthread_stop() in rtw_stop_drv_threads(). regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
