Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:30:21 -0500 (EST) | From | linux-os <> | Subject | Re: adm1026 driver port for kernel 2.6.10-rc2 [RE-REVISED DRIVER] |
| |
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>> this locking construct is rahter awkward; is it possible to refactor the >>> code such that you can down and up in the same function ? >> >> Yes, at the cost of some minor code duplication or the introduction of >> another variable. Is that preferable? Is holding the lock across function >> calls a Bad Idea? > > holding lock across function calls isn't, unlocking in another function > than you take the lock is. > For one it makes auditing the code a lot harder. >
Also, code like:
down(&mylock); do_something(); if(fail) { up(&mylock); return retval; }
... is prone to errors where a lock never gets released on some corner cases. It's often better to "goto" a common exit point where the lock is released.
Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.9 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by John Ashcroft. 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |