On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Two comments below.
>
> Patrick Uiterwijk <patr...@puiterwijk.org> writes:
>
> > +static int mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes(struct dsa_switch *ds)
>
> Since this function assumes the SMI lock is already held, its name
> should be prefixed with _ by convention (_mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes).
We decided to drop at, since nearly everything would end up with a _
prefix. The assert_smi_lock() should find any missing locks, and
lockdep/deadlocks will make it clear when the lock is taken twice.
Andrew
