On Monday 14 August 2017 09:00 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
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.
ok. will send a fix. Thanks Maddy
Maddy? cheersdiff --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
