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<tipec...@gmail.com>
> >>---
> >> 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
