On 07/22/2009 12:03 AM, Paul Menage wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:In cgroup_get_sb, the lock sequence is: mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); mutex_lock(&cgroup->mutex); so the last unlock sequence should be:Make this "so for consistency the last ..." ? Maybe make the patch title "Make unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb consistent" so someone looking through the change logs for fixes to backport doesn't wrongly thing that this fixes any bug"?
Yep, this is a trivial patch. Modified following your suggestion, thank you.
mutex_unlock(&cgroup->mutex); mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@xxxxxxxxxx>Acked-by: Paul Menage<menage@xxxxxxxxxx> Paul
>From ff96b0dc4a5f06a0e5b7f8dfa5df2b93e993302c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:06:43 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] cgroup: make unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb consistent Make the last unlock sequence consistent with previous unlock sequeue. Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c index 3737a68..11ef162 100644 --- a/kernel/cgroup.c +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c @@ -1140,8 +1140,8 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_system_type *fs_type, BUG_ON(root->number_of_cgroups != 1); cgroup_populate_dir(root_cgrp); - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); } simple_set_mnt(mnt, sb); -- 1.6.2.5
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
