[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100602083837.GC21639@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:38:38 +0200
From: "Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/17] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin_unlock
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 05:15:29PM -0400, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The reason why these bugs occur is that we sprinkle multiple `return'
> statements inside the middle of non-trivial functions. People miss
> some or fail to modify some when later changing locking rules and we
> gain bugs (or, similarly, resource leaks).
Right. I changed that in Julia's patch too before merging it into my
tree. It is already in -tip. See
http://git.kernel.org/tip/84fe6c19e4a598e8071e3bd1b2c923454eae1268
Joerg
--
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