From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Roedel, Joerg" Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:38:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/17] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin_unlock Message-Id: <20100602083837.GC21639@amd.com> List-Id: References: <20100601141529.0c99f22c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100601141529.0c99f22c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andrew Morton Cc: Julia Lawall , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" Hi Andrew, On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 05:15:29PM -0400, Andrew Morton wrote: > The reason why these bugs occur is that we sprinkle multiple `return' > statements inside the middle of non-trivial functions. People miss > some or fail to modify some when later changing locking rules and we > gain bugs (or, similarly, resource leaks). Right. I changed that in Julia's patch too before merging it into my tree. It is already in -tip. See http://git.kernel.org/tip/84fe6c19e4a598e8071e3bd1b2c923454eae1268 Joerg From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754851Ab0FBIiu (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2010 04:38:50 -0400 Received: from tx2ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.12]:21794 "EHLO TX2EHSOBE003.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753413Ab0FBIir (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2010 04:38:47 -0400 X-SpamScore: -5 X-BigFish: VPS-5(zz98dNzz1202hzzz32i2a8h87h43h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-FB-DOMAIN-IP-MATCH: fail X-WSS-ID: 0L3DPC9-01-KRY-02 X-M-MSG: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:38:38 +0200 From: "Roedel, Joerg" To: Andrew Morton CC: Julia Lawall , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/17] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin_unlock Message-ID: <20100602083837.GC21639@amd.com> References: <20100601141529.0c99f22c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100601141529.0c99f22c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Organization: Advanced Micro Devices =?iso-8859-1?Q?GmbH?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=2C_Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str=2E_34=2C_85609_Dornach_bei_M=FC?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?nchen=2C_Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer=3A_Thomas_M=2E_McCoy=2C_Giuli?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ano_Meroni=2C_Andrew_Bowd=2C_Sitz=3A_Dornach=2C_Gemeinde_A?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?schheim=2C_Landkreis_M=FCnchen=2C_Registergericht_M=FCnche?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?n=2C?= HRB Nr. 43632 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Reverse-DNS: unknown Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrew, On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 05:15:29PM -0400, Andrew Morton wrote: > The reason why these bugs occur is that we sprinkle multiple `return' > statements inside the middle of non-trivial functions. People miss > some or fail to modify some when later changing locking rules and we > gain bugs (or, similarly, resource leaks). Right. I changed that in Julia's patch too before merging it into my tree. It is already in -tip. See http://git.kernel.org/tip/84fe6c19e4a598e8071e3bd1b2c923454eae1268 Joerg