2021-03-26 12:30:53

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: [PATCH] platform/surface: clean up a variable in surface_dtx_read()

The "&client->ddev->lock" and "&ddev->lock" are the same thing. Let's
use "&ddev->lock" consistently.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
index 1fedacf74050..63ce587e79e3 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ static ssize_t surface_dtx_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t coun
if (status < 0)
return status;

- if (down_read_killable(&client->ddev->lock))
+ if (down_read_killable(&ddev->lock))
return -ERESTARTSYS;

/* Need to check that we're not shut down again. */
--
2.30.2

2021-03-26 14:08:43

by Maximilian Luz

Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/surface: clean up a variable in surface_dtx_read()

On 3/26/21 1:28 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The "&client->ddev->lock" and "&ddev->lock" are the same thing. Let's
> use "&ddev->lock" consistently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>

Good catch, thanks!

Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <[email protected]>

> ---
> drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
> index 1fedacf74050..63ce587e79e3 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
> @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ static ssize_t surface_dtx_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t coun
> if (status < 0)
> return status;
>
> - if (down_read_killable(&client->ddev->lock))
> + if (down_read_killable(&ddev->lock))
> return -ERESTARTSYS;
>
> /* Need to check that we're not shut down again. */
>

2021-04-07 20:55:15

by Hans de Goede

Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/surface: clean up a variable in surface_dtx_read()

Hi,

On 3/26/21 3:06 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> On 3/26/21 1:28 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> The "&client->ddev->lock" and "&ddev->lock" are the same thing.  Let's
>> use "&ddev->lock" consistently.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>
> Good catch, thanks!
>
> Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <[email protected]>

Thank you for the review, I've merged this now:

Thank you for your patch, I've applied this patch to my review-hans
branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=review-hans

Note it will show up in my review-hans branch once I've pushed my
local branch there, which might take a while.

Once I've run some tests on this branch the patches there will be
added to the platform-drivers-x86/for-next branch and eventually
will be included in the pdx86 pull-request to Linus for the next
merge-window.

Regards,

Hans



>
>> ---
>>   drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
>> index 1fedacf74050..63ce587e79e3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_dtx.c
>> @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ static ssize_t surface_dtx_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t coun
>>               if (status < 0)
>>                   return status;
>>   -            if (down_read_killable(&client->ddev->lock))
>> +            if (down_read_killable(&ddev->lock))
>>                   return -ERESTARTSYS;
>>                 /* Need to check that we're not shut down again. */
>>
>