bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 5/7] Fix double call to pthread_mutex_unlock in _treefs_s_dir


From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] Fix double call to pthread_mutex_unlock in _treefs_s_dir_lookup.
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:04:51 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30)

Cyril Roelandt, le Mon 17 Dec 2012 20:49:21 +0100, a écrit :
> On 12/17/2012 01:31 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >Cyril Roelandt, le Mon 17 Dec 2012 00:51:28 +0100, a écrit :
> >>* libtreefs/dir-lookup.c (_treefs_s_dir_lookup): remove a redundant call to
> >>pthread_mutex_unlock.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Cyril Roelandt<address@hidden>
> >>---
> >>  libtreefs/dir-lookup.c |    1 -
> >>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/libtreefs/dir-lookup.c b/libtreefs/dir-lookup.c
> >>index ce2acaf..41c34ea 100644
> >>--- a/libtreefs/dir-lookup.c
> >>+++ b/libtreefs/dir-lookup.c
> >>@@ -199,7 +199,6 @@ _treefs_s_dir_lookup (struct treefs_handle *h,
> >>         in the right order. */
> >>      if (strcmp (path, "..") != 0)
> >>        {
> >>-         pthread_mutex_unlock (&node->lock);
> >>          pthread_mutex_lock (&dir->lock);
> >>          pthread_mutex_lock (&node->lock);
> >
> >At quick sight I don't think this one is spurious, see the comment: this
> >code seems to be used when one wants to lock dir->lock, which we can
> >not do when we already have node->lock, that's why we have to release
> >node->lock before taking dir->lock again.
> >
> 
> 
> node->lock is unlocked at line 150 (before the do ... while block), so I
> think that unlocking it at line 202 is an error. I'm not even sure where it
> is locked in the first place

node is returned locked by the lookup function.

Samuel



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]