From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Fixes the un-paired cgroup lock problem Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:10 +0800 Message-ID: <4AF10CEE.5020807@cn.fujitsu.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Liu Aleaxander Cc: Paul Menage , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Liu Aleaxander wrote: > From: Liu Aleaxander > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:27:06 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] Fixes the un-paired cgroup lock problem > > In cgroup_lock_live_group, it locks the cgroup by mutex_lock, while in the > cgroup_tasks_write, it unlock it by cgroup_unlock. Even though they are > equal, but I do think we should make it pair. > > BTW, should we replace others with cgroup_lock and cgroup_unlock? > Since we already have a wrapper one and it's meaningful. > Before I read the email body, I thought there is a bug where there is a lock without unlock or vise versa. I agree the case here can be called "unpaired", but I'm not convinced this patch is needed. The code is not buggy or confusing. So the patch neither fixes a bug nor make the code more readable.