| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [XFS updates] XFS development tree branch, master, updated. v3.2-rc1-11-g9f9c19e, xfs |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 0/3] XFS updates for 3.0-stable, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 07/16] xfs: remove XFS_DQ_INACTIVE, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 05/16] xfs: cleanup dquot locking helpers, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |