tipc: correct usage of spin_lock() vs spin_lock_bh()
authorJon Paul Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:40:44 +0000 (16:40 -0500)
committerDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:26:34 +0000 (00:26 -0500)
commita11607f5a145818e097c64c72c839bcf6907e110
tree2ecb1489a066f5010de35befe3a0f3ff0a3c80b3
parent074bb43e9e594bec647ec45cc5bbc8c1ac2306aa
tipc: correct usage of spin_lock() vs spin_lock_bh()

I commit e099e86c9e24fe9aff36773600543eb31d8954d
("tipc: add node_lock protection to link lookup function")
we are calling spin_lock(&node->lock) directly instead of indirectly
via the tipc_node_lock(node) function. However, tipc_node_lock() is
using spin_lock_bh(), not spin_lock(), something leading to
unbalanced usage in one place, and a smatch warning.

We fix this by consistently using tipc_node_lock()/unlock() in
in the places touched by the mentioned commit.

Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
net/tipc/link.c