On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 06:41:48AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 07:54:40AM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote: > > It made things hard to read, move the check to a function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > index a590a67294e2..030828cdb778 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > @@ -602,6 +602,20 @@ static int __ipmi_bmc_register(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > static int __scan_channels(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > struct ipmi_device_id *id, bool rescan); > > > > +static void ipmi_lock_xmit_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf, int > > run_to_completion, > > + unsigned long *flags) > > +{ > > + if (!run_to_completion) > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, *flags); > > +} > > I usually see the opposite construction in most cases. Something like: > > static void ipmi_lock_xmit_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf, int > run_to_completion, > unsigned long *flags) > { > if (run_to_completion) > return; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, *flags); > }
Yes, that's better, I've changed it. > > Thanks for doing this, this looks way better! No problem. It was more for my own benefit :-). -corey > --breno _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
