From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: fix unlock in rte_eal_memzone_init
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:09:23 +0000
Message-ID: <0bd99be2-07e2-da13-23bb-9774ed470f90@intel.com>
References: <1544057251-17351-1-git-send-email-gfree.wind@vip.163.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Gao Feng <davidfgao@tencent.com>
To: gfree.wind@vip.163.com, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCEE6904
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  6 Dec 2018 10:09:26 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1544057251-17351-1-git-send-email-gfree.wind@vip.163.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 06-Dec-18 12:47 AM, gfree.wind@vip.163.com wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <davidfgao@tencent.com>
> 
> The RTE_PROC_PRIMARY error handler lost the unlock statement in the
> current codes. Now fix it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <davidfgao@tencent.com>

Fixes: 49df3db84883 ("memzone: replace memzone array with fbarray")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

> ---
>   lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c
> index b7081af..649cad4 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c
> @@ -375,6 +375,7 @@
>   			rte_fbarray_init(&mcfg->memzones, "memzone",
>   			RTE_MAX_MEMZONE, sizeof(struct rte_memzone))) {
>   		RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Cannot allocate memzone list\n");
> +		rte_rwlock_write_unlock(&mcfg->mlock);
>   		return -1;
>   	} else if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY &&
>   			rte_fbarray_attach(&mcfg->memzones)) {
> 

Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>

Although i would probably remove both unlocks and instead save and 
return a value, so that unlock happens in one place. But this is OK too.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly