Re: [PATCH 3/5] thermal/core: Remove unneeded mutex_destroy()

[Zhang, Rui]

On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 22:11 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> If the thermal framework fails to initialize, the mutex can be used
> by
> the different functions registering a thermal zone anyway.

Hmm, even with no governors and unregistered thermal sysfs class?

IMO, thermal APIs for registering a thermal_zone/cooling_device should
yield early if thermal_init fails.
For other APIs that relies on a valid
thermal_zone_device/thermal_cooling_device pointer, nothing needs to
be changed.

what do you think?

thanks,
rui


>  We should
> not destroy the mutexes as other components may use them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> index fad0c4a07d16..ea78c93277be 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> @@ -1602,7 +1602,7 @@ static int __init thermal_init(void)
>  
>  	result = thermal_netlink_init();
>  	if (result)
> -		goto error;
> +		return result;
>  
>  	result = thermal_register_governors();
>  	if (result)
> @@ -1623,9 +1623,7 @@ static int __init thermal_init(void)
>  	thermal_unregister_governors();
>  unregister_netlink:
>  	thermal_netlink_exit();
> -error:
> -	mutex_destroy(&thermal_list_lock);
> -	mutex_destroy(&thermal_governor_lock);
> +
>  	return result;
>  }
>  postcore_initcall(thermal_init);