From 974c45b17ec9837a2eee7d37a42be250ad5b5086 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julia Lawall Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 12:31:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin_unlock commit 84fe6c19e4a598e8071e3bd1b2c923454eae1268 upstream. Add a spin_unlock missing on the error path. The locks and unlocks are balanced in other functions, so it seems that the same should be the case here. The semantic match that finds this problem is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) // @@ expression E1; @@ * spin_lock(E1,...); <+... when != E1 if (...) { ... when != E1 * return ...; } ...+> * spin_unlock(E1,...); // Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c index bbef34ed4d02..ca15b9341873 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c @@ -1419,6 +1419,7 @@ static int __attach_device(struct device *dev, struct protection_domain *domain) { struct iommu_dev_data *dev_data, *alias_data; + int ret; dev_data = get_dev_data(dev); alias_data = get_dev_data(dev_data->alias); @@ -1430,13 +1431,14 @@ static int __attach_device(struct device *dev, spin_lock(&domain->lock); /* Some sanity checks */ + ret = -EBUSY; if (alias_data->domain != NULL && alias_data->domain != domain) - return -EBUSY; + goto out_unlock; if (dev_data->domain != NULL && dev_data->domain != domain) - return -EBUSY; + goto out_unlock; /* Do real assignment */ if (dev_data->alias != dev) { @@ -1452,10 +1454,14 @@ static int __attach_device(struct device *dev, atomic_inc(&dev_data->bind); + ret = 0; + +out_unlock: + /* ready */ spin_unlock(&domain->lock); - return 0; + return ret; } /* -- 2.39.5