From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:63756 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755390Ab1ACQew (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:34:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 19:34:36 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Chuck Lever Cc: Trond Myklebust , "J. Bruce Fields" , Neil Brown , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch -next] lockd: double unlock in next_host_state() Message-ID: <20110103163403.GY1886@bicker> References: <20110102202042.GN1886@bicker> <001458D4-F513-4959-9BE7-476F8542D009@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <001458D4-F513-4959-9BE7-476F8542D009@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 10:59:36AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > - mutex_unlock(&nlm_host_mutex); > > goto out; > > } > > } > > Would it also make sense to replace the "goto out;" with a "break;" ? No. for_each_host() is a nested for loop, so a break would only take you out of the inner most loop. regards, dan carpenter