* [patch] blkcg: change a spin_lock() to spin_lock_irq()
@ 2012-03-29 18:51 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2012-03-29 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
Smatch complains that we re-enable IRQs twice. It looks like we forgot
to disable them here on the spin_trylock() failure path. This was added
in 9f13ef678e "blkcg: use double locking instead of RCU for blkg
synchronization".
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index 74a76a8..bf4b76e 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -1598,7 +1598,7 @@ static int blkiocg_pre_destroy(struct cgroup *cgroup)
} else {
spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
cpu_relax();
- spin_lock(&blkcg->lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
}
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [patch] blkcg: change a spin_lock() to spin_lock_irq()
@ 2012-03-29 18:51 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2012-03-29 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
Smatch complains that we re-enable IRQs twice. It looks like we forgot
to disable them here on the spin_trylock() failure path. This was added
in 9f13ef678e "blkcg: use double locking instead of RCU for blkg
synchronization".
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index 74a76a8..bf4b76e 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -1598,7 +1598,7 @@ static int blkiocg_pre_destroy(struct cgroup *cgroup)
} else {
spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
cpu_relax();
- spin_lock(&blkcg->lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
}
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [patch] blkcg: change a spin_lock() to spin_lock_irq()
2012-03-29 18:51 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2012-03-29 18:57 ` Jens Axboe
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2012-03-29 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: Tejun Heo, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
On 2012-03-29 20:51, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Smatch complains that we re-enable IRQs twice. It looks like we forgot
> to disable them here on the spin_trylock() failure path. This was added
> in 9f13ef678e "blkcg: use double locking instead of RCU for blkg
> synchronization".
Thanks, that is indeed a screwup. Fix applied.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] blkcg: change a spin_lock() to spin_lock_irq()
@ 2012-03-29 18:57 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2012-03-29 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: Tejun Heo, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
On 2012-03-29 20:51, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Smatch complains that we re-enable IRQs twice. It looks like we forgot
> to disable them here on the spin_trylock() failure path. This was added
> in 9f13ef678e "blkcg: use double locking instead of RCU for blkg
> synchronization".
Thanks, that is indeed a screwup. Fix applied.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-03-29 18:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-03-29 18:51 [patch] blkcg: change a spin_lock() to spin_lock_irq() Dan Carpenter
2012-03-29 18:51 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-03-29 18:57 ` Jens Axboe
2012-03-29 18:57 ` Jens Axboe
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.