On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 02:29:35PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> From: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix....@intel.com>
>
> It's safe and more reasonable to unlock memtype_lock right after
> rbt_memtype_check_insert.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix....@intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/pat.c | 7 ++-----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
> index 188e3e0..cb75639 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
> @@ -538,20 +538,17 @@ int reserve_memtype(u64 start, u64 end, enum
> page_cache_mode req_type,
> new->type = actual_type;
>
> spin_lock(&memtype_lock);
> -
> err = rbt_memtype_check_insert(new, new_type);
> + spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
> +
> if (err) {
> pr_info("x86/PAT: reserve_memtype failed [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx],
> track %s, req %s\n",
> start, end - 1,
> cattr_name(new->type), cattr_name(req_type));
> kfree(new);
> - spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
> -
> return err;
> }
>
> - spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
> -
> dprintk("reserve_memtype added [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx], track %s, req %s,
> ret %s\n",
> start, end - 1, cattr_name(new->type), cattr_name(req_type),
> new_type ? cattr_name(*new_type) : "-");
While you're at it, please fix a similar issue in lookup_memtype() and also
improve the comments over memtype_lock to explain what exactly it protects.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
