lock/unlock mismatch in ttm_bo.c

[Tom St Denis]

On 19/01/18 01:14 PM, Tom St Denis wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> In the function ttm_bo_cleanup_refs() it seems possible to get to line 
> 551 without entering the block on 516 which means you'll be unlocking a 
> mutex that wasn't locked.
> 
> Now it might be that in the course of the API this pattern cannot be 
> expressed but it's not clear from the function alone that that is the case.


Looking further it seems the behaviour depends on locking in parent 
callers.  That's kinda a no-no right?  Shouldn't the lock be 
taken/released in the same function ideally?

(also there are a handful of style issues I'll write up some patches for 
on Monday :-)).

Cheers,
Tom