[PATCH 7/7 part3] fix for sem_lock

[Rik van Riel]

> > +               /*
> > +                * If sma->complex_count was set while we were spinning,
> > +                * we may need to look at things we did not lock here.
> > +                */
> > +               if (unlikely(sma->complex_count)) {
> > +                       spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> 
> I believe this should be spin_unlock(&sem->lock) instead ?

Michel, thanks for spotting this!

Andrew, could you fold this fix into my patch 7/7 before submitting
things for 3.10?  Thank you.

--->8---
Fix a typo in sem_lock.  Of course we need to unlock the local
semaphore lock before jumping to lock_all, in the rare case that
somebody started a complex operation while we were spinning on
the spinlock.

Can be folded into patch 7/7 before merging

Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 ipc/sem.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index a4b93fb..450248e 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
 		 * we may need to look at things we did not lock here.
 		 */
 		if (unlikely(sma->complex_count)) {
-			spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
+			spin_unlock(&sem->lock);
 			goto lock_all;
 		}
 		locknum = sops->sem_num;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/