| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: inconsistent lock state (2.6.34, XFS inode shrinker), Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 01/17] xfs: remove done roadmap item from xfs-delayed-logging-design.txt, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: inconsistent lock state (2.6.34, XFS inode shrinker), Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 01/17] xfs: remove done roadmap item from xfs-delayed-logging-design.txt, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |