| Message ID | YpStOhUL4j7KBSqt@kili (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [(mellanox,tree)] net/mlx5: delete dead code in mlx5_esw_unlock() | expand |
On 30 May 14:40, Dan Carpenter wrote: You can use [PATCH net-mlx5] for fixes and [PATCH net-next-mlx5] for none-critical commits. >Smatch complains about this function: > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c:2000 mlx5_esw_unlock() > warn: inconsistent returns '&esw->mode_lock'. > >Before commit ec2fa47d7b98 ("net/mlx5: Lag, use lag lock") there >used to be a matching mlx5_esw_lock() function and the lock and >unlock functions were symmetric. But now we take the long ^ lock ? >unconditionally and must unlock unconditionally as well. > >As near as I can tell this is dead code and can just be deleted. > >Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> Fixed up the typo and applied to net-next-mlx5. Thanks, Saeed.
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 01:11:25PM -0700, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On 30 May 14:40, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > You can use [PATCH net-mlx5] for fixes and [PATCH net-next-mlx5] for > none-critical commits. > Realistically, there is no way I'm going to remember that and there isn't an automated way to look it up. I try really hard to get the net tree stuff correct so when netdev is on the CC list. But putting the correct net tree in the subject line is quite a huge headache and I quite often get it wrong. > > Smatch complains about this function: > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c:2000 mlx5_esw_unlock() > > warn: inconsistent returns '&esw->mode_lock'. > > > > Before commit ec2fa47d7b98 ("net/mlx5: Lag, use lag lock") there > > used to be a matching mlx5_esw_lock() function and the lock and > > unlock functions were symmetric. But now we take the long > ^ lock ? Heh. Thanks. regards, dan carpenter
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c index 719ef26d23c0..3e662e389be4 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c @@ -1995,8 +1995,6 @@ int mlx5_esw_try_lock(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw) */ void mlx5_esw_unlock(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw) { - if (!mlx5_esw_allowed(esw)) - return; up_write(&esw->mode_lock); }
Smatch complains about this function: drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c:2000 mlx5_esw_unlock() warn: inconsistent returns '&esw->mode_lock'. Before commit ec2fa47d7b98 ("net/mlx5: Lag, use lag lock") there used to be a matching mlx5_esw_lock() function and the lock and unlock functions were symmetric. But now we take the long unconditionally and must unlock unconditionally as well. As near as I can tell this is dead code and can just be deleted. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)