[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 16:27:33 -0700
From: Daniel Mentz <danielmentz@...gle.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Daniel Mentz <danielmentz@...gle.com>,
"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH] kmod: test_kmod: Correctly lock reg_dev_mutex
It appears that, in the preamble of register_test_dev_kmod(),
mutex_lock() has been confused with mutex_unlock().
Previously, register_test_dev_kmod() never called mutex_lock() but
instead, it called mutex_unlock() twice.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mentz <danielmentz@...gle.com>
Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
---
lib/test_kmod.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_kmod.c b/lib/test_kmod.c
index 6c1d678bcf8b..f458130a5e65 100644
--- a/lib/test_kmod.c
+++ b/lib/test_kmod.c
@@ -1146,7 +1146,7 @@ static struct kmod_test_device *register_test_dev_kmod(void)
struct kmod_test_device *test_dev = NULL;
int ret;
- mutex_unlock(®_dev_mutex);
+ mutex_lock(®_dev_mutex);
/* int should suffice for number of devices, test for wrap */
if (unlikely(num_test_devs + 1) < 0) {
--
2.14.0.434.g98096fd7a8-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists