On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 00:23:29 +0000 HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --- mm/memory-failure.c > > +++ mm/memory-failure.c > > @@ -1782,6 +1796,8 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > > > > identify_page_state: > > res = identify_page_state(pfn, p, page_flags); > > + mutex_unlock(&mf_mutex); > > + return res; > > unlock_page: > > unlock_page(p); > > unlock_mutex: > > > > and... That mutex_unlock() looks odd. The patch adds no matching > > mutex_lock? > > Yes, memory_failure() already has one mutex_lock (introduced by > mm-memory-failure-use-a-mutex-to-avoid-memory_failure-races.patch, > sorry for not clarifying that), and the change introduces a separate > return path. But I now think that I should have used "goto unlock_mutex" > to use existing return path. But mm-memory-failure-use-a-mutex-to-avoid-memory_failure-races.patch is part of Tony's three patch series which is not marked for -stable. So it isn't appropriate that this patch be based on top of that three patch series. Should Tony's patchset also be targeted to -stable? If so then OK. If not then please let's prepare your -stable patch against current mainline, as it is higher priority than the 5.14-rc1 material in linux-next.
