Danny Feng wrote: > 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. > As far as it's not declared as a fix, I has no objection to this patch. Please always inline the patch in the mail body. And when resending the patch, add the acked-by you collected in it: Acked-by: Balbir ... Acked-by: Paul ... Signed-off-by: Xiaotian ... You may resend the patch to Andrew Morton, who picks up cgroup patches, otherwise the patch may be overlooked. >>> mutex_unlock(&cgroup->mutex); >>> mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Paul Menage<menage@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Paul > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
