[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100601053842.GD5134@cr0.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:38:42 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Brandon Philips <brandon@...p.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] module: make locking more fine-grained.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:31:42PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>@@ -783,9 +787,13 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(delete_module, const cha
> /* Store the name of the last unloaded module for diagnostic purposes */
> strlcpy(last_unloaded_module, mod->name, sizeof(last_unloaded_module));
> ddebug_remove_module(mod->name);
>+
>+ /* free_module doesn't want module_mutex held by caller. */
>+ mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> free_module(mod);
>-
>- out:
>+ goto out_stop;
As Stephen found in linux-next, this line doesn't pass compiling.
I think this line should be just deleted.
>+
>+out:
> mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> return ret;
> }
Thanks.
--
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