| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 07/16] xfs: remove XFS_DQ_INACTIVE |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:43:50 -0500 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20111205083741.GB29401@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20111128082722.604873274@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111128082837.441012540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111205042351.GN7046@dastard> <20111205083741.GB29401@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:37:41AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:23:51PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > + xfs_qm_dqdestroy(dqp); > > > return (0); > > > } > > > > While there, you may as well make that a "return 0;" > > Indeed. > > > > - mutex_unlock(&xqm->qm_dqfrlist_lock); > > > - mutex_destroy(&xqm->qm_dqfrlist_lock); > > > kmem_free(xqm); > > > } > > > > Don't we still need that mutex_destroy() call there? > > We never needed it - Linux does an implicit mutex_destory when freeing > memory containing a mutex. Does this count as a revied-by now? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests/071 FAIL with pwrite64: Invalid argument, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfstests: test 110 sometimes fails to unmount scratch dev, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 07/16] xfs: remove XFS_DQ_INACTIVE, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 07/16] xfs: remove XFS_DQ_INACTIVE, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |