From dabc47de7a23f57522dc762d9d2ad875700d3497 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sunil Mushran Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:37:15 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] ocfs2/dlm: Use ast_lock to protect ast_list The code was using dlm->spinlock instead of dlm->ast_lock to protect the ast_list. This patch fixes the issue. Signed-off-by: Sunil Mushran Acked-by: Joel Becker Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh --- fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c index 86ca085ef32..fcf879ed693 100644 --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmunlock.c @@ -117,11 +117,11 @@ static enum dlm_status dlmunlock_common(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, else BUG_ON(res->owner == dlm->node_num); - spin_lock(&dlm->spinlock); + spin_lock(&dlm->ast_lock); /* We want to be sure that we're not freeing a lock * that still has AST's pending... */ in_use = !list_empty(&lock->ast_list); - spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock); + spin_unlock(&dlm->ast_lock); if (in_use) { mlog(ML_ERROR, "lockres %.*s: Someone is calling dlmunlock " "while waiting for an ast!", res->lockname.len, -- 2.41.1