[PATCH V2] x86/mm/pat: Do a small optimization and fix in reserve_memtype

[Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@intel.com>]

From: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@intel.com>

It's safe and more reasonable to unlock memtype_lock right after
rbt_memtype_check_insert. It's not cool to call kfree, pr_info, etc with
this lock held. So move spin_unlock a little ahead.

memory_lock protects data stored in rb-tree, if *new* succeed to be
stored into the rb-tree, we might hit panic. Because we access *new* in
dprintk "cattr_name(new->type)". data stored in the rb-tree might be
freed at any possbile time. It's abviously wrong to access such data
without lock. So save new->type to actual_type, and use actual_type in
dprintk.

Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@intel.com>
---
change from V1:
	fix an access of *new* without memtype_lock held.
---
 arch/x86/mm/pat.c | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
index 188e3e0..f3c49fa 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
@@ -538,22 +538,20 @@ int reserve_memtype(u64 start, u64 end, enum page_cache_mode req_type,
 	new->type	= actual_type;
 
 	spin_lock(&memtype_lock);
-
 	err = rbt_memtype_check_insert(new, new_type);
+	actual_type = new->type;
+	spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
+
 	if (err) {
 		pr_info("x86/PAT: reserve_memtype failed [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx], track %s, req %s\n",
 			start, end - 1,
 			cattr_name(new->type), cattr_name(req_type));
 		kfree(new);
-		spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
-
 		return err;
 	}
 
-	spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
-
 	dprintk("reserve_memtype added [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx], track %s, req %s, ret %s\n",
-		start, end - 1, cattr_name(new->type), cattr_name(req_type),
+		start, end - 1, cattr_name(actual_type), cattr_name(req_type),
 		new_type ? cattr_name(*new_type) : "-");
 
 	return err;
-- 
1.9.1