At 2018-12-06 17:09:23, "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote:
>On 06-Dec-18 12:47 AM, gfree.w...@vip.163.com wrote:
>> From: Gao Feng <davidf...@tencent.com>
>>
>> The RTE_PROC_PRIMARY error handler lost the unlock statement in the
>> current codes. Now fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <davidf...@tencent.com>
>
>Fixes: 49df3db84883 ("memzone: replace memzone array with fbarray")
>Cc: sta...@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.bura...@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.
Thanks Anatoly's review.
I also prefer keep unlock in one place.
As a new guy, finally I choose just a fix with a minor change. I would do
better next time.
And could I ask you one question, Anatoly?
I sent another dpdk patch with wrong git-send-email command, "git send-email -1
--to dev@dpdk.org patch_xxxx".
As a result, it generated another wrong reply and email thread.
I don't know if i need to send v2 patch to correct it then?
Its url is https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@dpdk.org/msg119925.html.
Best Regards
Feng
>
>--
>Thanks,
>Anatoly
