[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A65A2B6.6050404@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:12:54 +0800
From: Danny Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: menage@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix reverse unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb
On 07/21/2009 07:10 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@...hat.com> [2009-07-21 18:25:26]:
>
>> In cgroup_get_sb, the lock sequence is:
>> mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>> mutex_lock(&cgroup->mutex);
>> so the last unlock sequence should be:
>> mutex_unlock(&cgroup->mutex);
>> mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
>> index 3737a68..11ef162 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
>> @@ -1140,8 +1140,8 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
>> BUG_ON(root->number_of_cgroups != 1);
>>
>> cgroup_populate_dir(root_cgrp);
>> - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
>> mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
>> + mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
>> }
>>
>
> Seems reasonable to me. You might also want to mention that elsewhere
> the sequence is unlock cgroup_mutex followed by inode->i_mutex.
Yep, thank you very much:-)
>
> Acked-by: Balbir Singh<balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists