# Re: \[PATCH 6/6\] staging: sm750fb: Spinlock and unlock in the same block

- From: Dan Carpenter \<hidden\>
- Date: 2015-03-11 09:09:36 
- List: linux-fbdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2015/03/4448217
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2015/03/4448042/t.md

```text
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:28:45AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> -static inline void myspin_lock(spinlock_t * sl){
> -	struct lynx_share * share;
> -	share = container_of(sl,struct lynx_share,slock);
> -	if(share->dual){
> -		spin_lock(sl);
> -	}
> -}

Yes, good.  We all hate locking wrappers but these are worse than
normal.

> +	/* if not use spin_lock,system will die if user load driver
> +	 * and immediatly unload driver frequently (dual)*/
> +	if (share->dual) {
> +		spin_lock(&share->slock);
> +		share->accel.de_fillrect(&share->accel,
> +					base,pitch,Bpp,
> +					region->dx,region->dy,
> +					region->width,region->height,
> +					color,rop);
> +		spin_unlock(&share->slock);
> +	} else
> +		share->accel.de_fillrect(&share->accel,
> +					base,pitch,Bpp,
> +					region->dx,region->dy,
> +					region->width,region->height,
> +					color,rop);
>  }

No.  You've made the code uglier to work around Sparse stupidness.  Also
the braces are not according to kernel style.

	if (share->dual)
		spin_lock(&share->slock);

	share->accel.de_fillrect(&share->accel,
				 base,pitch,Bpp,
				 region->dx,region->dy,
				 region->width,region->height,
				 color,rop);

	if (share->dual)
		spin_unlock(&share->slock);

Sparse will still complain but no one cares.

regards,
```