xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/16] xfs: remove XFS_DQ_INACTIVE
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:34:32 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20111206144350.GA16767@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20111128082722.604873274@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111128082837.441012540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111205042351.GN7046@dastard> <20111205083741.GB29401@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111206144350.GA16767@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:43:50AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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?

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>