Re: 2.6.14 kernels and above copy_to_user stupidity with IRQ disabled check

[email protected] wrote:

OK.  Got it.  I guess I need to restructure.  And BTW, This was a code fragment
only, the spinlock gets released when -EFAULT is called -- was just an example.

Jeff

Unless you have redefined EFAULT in some strange and hideous way, it is not "called" and doesn't free the spinlock. EFAULT is defined as a literal integer, so you're just returning a number without freeing the spinlock.

If you have redefined EFAULT to a macro function call or whatever, then don't do that, it's REALLY horrible coding practice.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: 2.6.14 kernels and above copy_to_user stupidity with IRQ disabled check
    • From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 2.6.14 kernels and above copy_to_user stupidity with IRQ disabled check
    • From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.14 kernels and above copy_to_user stupidity with IRQ disabled check
    • From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.14 kernels and above copy_to_user stupidity with IRQ disabled check
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: How to map high memory for block io
• Next by Date: Re: iommu_alloc failure and panic
• Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.14 kernels and above copy_to_user stupidity with IRQ disabled check
• Next by thread: Re: 2.6.14 kernels and above copy_to_user stupidity with IRQ disabled check
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]