xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfs-masters] [PATCH 11/17] fs/xfs/quota: Add missing mutex_unlock

To: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [PATCH 11/17] fs/xfs/quota: Add missing mutex_unlock
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:34:29 -0500
Cc: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005261757050.23743@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005261757050.23743@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx>
> 
> 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@xxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [xfs-masters] [PATCH 11/17] fs/xfs/quota: Add missing mutex_unlock, Eric Sandeen <=