[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1311928444-4848-1-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:34:04 +0800
From: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: [PATCH] fs:remove a no needed mutex_unlock in devtmpfs
According ed75e95de574c99575e5f3e1d9ca59ea8c12a9cb, Al killed the
lookup_create(), this function will return with an mutex locked,
and it called by dev_mkdir() previously. then unlock this mutex
in dev_mkdir(), but when lookup_create() is replaced by kern_path_create(),
no locked mutex returned, so no need to unlock the mutex.
Al, is it right?
Thanks
Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>
---
drivers/base/devtmpfs.c | 1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c b/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c
index b89fffc..5384883 100644
--- a/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c
+++ b/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c
@@ -157,7 +157,6 @@ static int dev_mkdir(const char *name, mode_t mode)
/* mark as kernel-created inode */
dentry->d_inode->i_private = &thread;
dput(dentry);
- mutex_unlock(&path.dentry->d_inode->i_mutex);
path_put(&path);
return err;
}
--
1.7.6
--
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