On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:32:42AM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes:
>
> > -static int mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
> > +static int _mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
> > {
> > struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
> >
> > @@ -702,6 +706,19 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count(struct dsa_switch
> > *ds, int port)
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> We worked to remove the old underscore prefix convention. Please don't
> add it back... Simply rework the return statements of
> mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count to lock/unlock there.
Hi Vivien
That makes mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count quite complex, making it error
prone. Doing the locking in a separate function makes is very clear
the lock is held and then correctly released. So i will just rename
_mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count() to mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count_locked()
Andrew
