[PATCH 1/2] drivers: staging: wilc1000: Move spin lock to the start of critical section

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:37:13PM +0530, Chandra Gorentla wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 09:43:35AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 02:57:29PM +0530, Chandra S Gorentla wrote:
> > > The spin_lock_irqsave is moved to just beginning of critical section.
> > > This change moves a couple of return statements out of the lock.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chandra S Gorentla <csgorentla at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c
> > > index d5ebd6d..284a3f5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_msgqueue.c
> > > @@ -72,8 +72,6 @@ int wilc_mq_send(WILC_MsgQueueHandle *pHandle,
> > >  		goto ERRORHANDLER;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&pHandle->strCriticalSection, flags);
> > > -
> > >  	/* construct a new message */
> > >  	pstrMessage = kmalloc(sizeof(Message), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > 
> > As you have moved the lock, can you also change this to GFP_KERNEL as
> > well because we do not have a lock held?
> Can 'the change to GFP_KERNEL' be done in a separate patch?

Yes.

> The lock is to protect linked list manipulations; in this function items
> are added to the list.

Ok, please add that description to the patch so we know what is going
on, and that you know what is going on as well :)

thanks,

greg k-h