Re: [PATCH] fs:remove a no needed mutex_unlock in devtmpfs

[Wanlong Gao]

On 07/29/2011 04:34 PM, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> According ed75e95de574c99575e5f3e1d9ca59ea8c12a9cb, Al killed the
> lookup_create(), this function will return with an mutex locked,
> and it called by dev_mkdir() previously. then unlock this mutex
> in dev_mkdir(), but when lookup_create() is replaced by kern_path_create(),
> no locked mutex returned, so no need to unlock the mutex.
>
> Al, is it right?
> Thanks
Sorry, kern_path_create() also held a mutex, I made a mistake.
Thanks
> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   drivers/base/devtmpfs.c |    1 -
>   1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c b/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c
> index b89fffc..5384883 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c
> @@ -157,7 +157,6 @@ static int dev_mkdir(const char *name, mode_t mode)
>   		/* mark as kernel-created inode */
>   		dentry->d_inode->i_private =&thread;
>   	dput(dentry);
> -	mutex_unlock(&path.dentry->d_inode->i_mutex);
>   	path_put(&path);
>   	return err;
>   }


--
Thanks
Best Regards
Wanlong Gao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/