From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Mar 10 19:12:47 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA02959
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:12:47 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from luoqi.watermarkgroup.com (luoqi.watermarkgroup.com [207.202.73.170])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA02941
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:12:43 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from luoqi@luoqi.watermarkgroup.com)
Received: (from luoqi@localhost)
	by luoqi.watermarkgroup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA03744
	for current@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:12:42 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from luoqi)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:12:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@luoqi.watermarkgroup.com>
Message-Id: <199803110312.WAA03744@luoqi.watermarkgroup.com>
To: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: typo in vop_stdlock() ?
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Found this when I was browsing throught the code (vfs_default.c),

int
vop_stdlock(ap)
        struct vop_lock_args /* {
                struct vnode *a_vp;
                int a_flags;
                struct proc *a_p;
        } */ *ap;
{
        struct lock *l;

        if ((l = (struct lock *)ap->a_vp->v_data) == NULL) {
                if (ap->a_flags & LK_INTERLOCK)
                        simple_unlock(&ap->a_vp->v_interlock);
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                return 0;
        }

        return (lockmgr(l, ap->a_flags, &ap->a_vp->v_interlock, ap->a_p));
}

Shouldn't simple_unlock be simple_lock instead?

-lq

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message