Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:10 +0800 | From | Li Zefan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Fixes the un-paired cgroup lock problem |
| |
Liu Aleaxander wrote: > From: Liu Aleaxander <Aleaxander@gmail.com> > 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.
| |