From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:05:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] powerpc/perf: double unlock bug in imc_common_cpuhp_mem_free() Message-Id: <20170811200541.qlxcpp3og33sdki3@mwanda> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Anju T Sudhakar Cc: Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Madhavan Srinivasan , Hemant Kumar , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org There is a typo so we call unlock instead of lock. Fixes: 885dcd709ba9 ("powerpc/perf: Add nest IMC PMU support") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter --- I also don't understand how the &nest_imc_refc[node_id].lock works. Why can't we use ref->lock everywhere? They seem equivalent, and my static checker complains if we call the same lock different names. diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c index 46cd912af060..52017f6eafd9 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c @@ -1124,7 +1124,7 @@ static void cleanup_all_thread_imc_memory(void) static void imc_common_cpuhp_mem_free(struct imc_pmu *pmu_ptr) { if (pmu_ptr->domain = IMC_DOMAIN_NEST) { - mutex_unlock(&nest_init_lock); + mutex_lock(&nest_init_lock); if (nest_pmus = 1) { cpuhp_remove_state(CPUHP_AP_PERF_POWERPC_NEST_IMC_ONLINE); kfree(nest_imc_refc);