On 2017/7/5 下午7:58, Liang Chen wrote:
> Hi Coly,
> Thanks for reviewing the patch! You raised a good point about the race. I also
> think it should be addressed. Even though the time window is small, it will
> still happen sooner or later.
>
> I would like to keep this "destory mutex" patch unchan
mutex_destroy does nothing normally (may not be true in the future), but
when debug mutex is turned on it helps with debugging - mutex_destroy
in mutex-debug.c.
It's not about freeing of the memory. It's more about consistency of the
use of mutex and making the code future proof.
Thanks,
Linag
On
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:42:55PM -0700, bca...@lists.ewheeler.net wrote:
> From: Liang Chen
>
> mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
> it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
> for like mutex debug.
It shouldn't really - we should get the destr
Hi Coly,
Thanks for reviewing the patch! You raised a good point about the race. I also
think it should be addressed. Even though the time window is small, it will
still happen sooner or later.
I would like to keep this "destory mutex" patch unchanged, and send another
patch to fix the issue based
On 2017/7/1 上午4:42, bca...@lists.ewheeler.net wrote:
> From: Liang Chen
>
> mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
> it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
> for like mutex debug.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liang Chen
> Reviewed-by: Eric Wheeler
> Cc: s
From: Liang Chen
mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
for like mutex debug.
Signed-off-by: Liang Chen
Reviewed-by: Eric Wheeler
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 2 ++
1 file cha