[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix unlock in rte_eal_memzone_init
Burakov, Anatoly
anatoly.burakov at intel.com
Thu Dec 6 10:09:23 CET 2018
On 06-Dec-18 12:47 AM, gfree.wind at vip.163.com wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <davidfgao at tencent.com>
>
> The RTE_PROC_PRIMARY error handler lost the unlock statement in the
> current codes. Now fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <davidfgao at tencent.com>
Fixes: 49df3db84883 ("memzone: replace memzone array with fbarray")
Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> ---
> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c
> index b7081af..649cad4 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c
> @@ -375,6 +375,7 @@
> rte_fbarray_init(&mcfg->memzones, "memzone",
> RTE_MAX_MEMZONE, sizeof(struct rte_memzone))) {
> RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Cannot allocate memzone list\n");
> + rte_rwlock_write_unlock(&mcfg->mlock);
> return -1;
> } else if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY &&
> rte_fbarray_attach(&mcfg->memzones)) {
>
Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
Although i would probably remove both unlocks and instead save and
return a value, so that unlock happens in one place. But this is OK too.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
More information about the dev
mailing list