On 07/22/2009 10:18 AM, Li Zefan wrote: > 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. > Got it, thank you very much. >>>> 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
