xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 07/16] xfs: remove XFS_DQ_INACTIVE

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>