On 07/21/2009 07:10 PM, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Xiaotian Feng<df...@redhat.com> [2009-07-21 18:25:26]: > >> In cgroup_get_sb, the lock sequence is: >> mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); >> mutex_lock(&cgroup->mutex); >> so the last unlock sequence should be: >> mutex_unlock(&cgroup->mutex); >> mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); >> >> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng<df...@redhat.com> >> --- >> kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c >> index 3737a68..11ef162 100644 >> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c >> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c >> @@ -1140,8 +1140,8 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_system_type >> *fs_type, >> BUG_ON(root->number_of_cgroups != 1); >> >> cgroup_populate_dir(root_cgrp); >> - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); >> mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex); >> + mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); >> } >> > > Seems reasonable to me. You might also want to mention that elsewhere > the sequence is unlock cgroup_mutex followed by inode->i_mutex. Yep, thank you very much:-) > > Acked-by: Balbir Singh<bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
