[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C05D145.6080602@sandeen.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:34:29 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
CC: Alex Elder <aelder@....com>, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
xfs@....sgi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [PATCH 11/17] fs/xfs/quota: Add missing mutex_unlock
Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
>
> Add a mutex_unlock missing on the error path. The use of this lock is
> balanced elsewhere in the file.
>
> The semantic match that finds this problem is as follows:
> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>
> // <smpl>
> @@
> expression E1;
> @@
>
> * mutex_lock(E1,...);
> <+... when != E1
> if (...) {
> ... when != E1
> * return ...;
> }
> ...+>
> * mutex_unlock(E1,...);
> // </smpl>
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
>
> ---
> The use of ENOMEM rather than -ENOMEM is also a bit odd.
All the xfs core code uses positive errors, it's an irix holdover.
As things bubble up to the vfs interface, signs get switched.
Yeah, it's a bit odd, but nobody dares change it ;)
Maybe semantic patching could fix it ;)
-Eric
--
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