There is a typo so we call unlock instead of lock.
Fixes: 885dcd709ba9 ("powerpc/perf: Add nest IMC PMU support")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
I also don't understand how the &nest_imc_refc[node_id].lock works. Why
can't we use ref->lock everywhere? They seem equivalent, and my static
checker complains if we call the same lock different names.
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
index 46cd912af060..52017f6eafd9 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
@@ -1124,7 +1124,7 @@ static void cleanup_all_thread_imc_memory(void)
static void imc_common_cpuhp_mem_free(struct imc_pmu *pmu_ptr)
{
if (pmu_ptr->domain == IMC_DOMAIN_NEST) {
- mutex_unlock(&nest_init_lock);
+ mutex_lock(&nest_init_lock);
if (nest_pmus == 1) {
cpuhp_remove_state(CPUHP_AP_PERF_POWERPC_NEST_IMC_ONLINE);
kfree(nest_imc_refc);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
