On 07/22/2009 12:03 AM, Paul Menage wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Xiaotian Feng<df...@redhat.com> wrote:
In cgroup_get_sb, the lock sequence is:
mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
mutex_lock(&cgroup->mutex);
so the last unlock sequence should be:
Make this "so for consistency the last ..." ?
Maybe make the patch title "Make unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb
consistent" so someone looking through the change logs for fixes to
backport doesn't wrongly thing that this fixes any bug"?
Yep, this is a trivial patch. Modified following your suggestion, thank
you.
mutex_unlock(&cgroup->mutex);
mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng<df...@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Paul Menage<men...@google.com>
Paul
>From ff96b0dc4a5f06a0e5b7f8dfa5df2b93e993302c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xiaotian Feng <df...@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:06:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] cgroup: make unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb consistent
Make the last unlock sequence consistent with previous unlock sequeue.
Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <df...@redhat.com>
---
kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
index 3737a68..11ef162 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -1140,8 +1140,8 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
BUG_ON(root->number_of_cgroups != 1);
cgroup_populate_dir(root_cgrp);
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
}
simple_set_mnt(mnt, sb);
--
1.6.2.5
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
