Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
That looks like a bug to me, ie. we should always use ref.
Maddy?
cheers
> 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
