Subject: [PATCH] powerpc/perf: double unlock bug in imc_common_cpuhp_mem_free()

From: Dan Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 23:05:41 +0300

There is a typo so we call unlock instead of lock.

Fixes: 885dcd709ba9 ("powerpc/perf: Add nest IMC PMU support")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email-masked]>
---
I also don't understand how the &nest_imc_refc[node_id].lock works.  Why
can't we use ref->lock everywhere?  They seem equivalent, and my static
checker complains if we call the same lock different names.

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
index 46cd912af060..52017f6eafd9 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/imc-pmu.c
@@ -1124,7 +1124,7 @@ static void cleanup_all_thread_imc_memory(void)
 static void imc_common_cpuhp_mem_free(struct imc_pmu *pmu_ptr)
 {
 	if (pmu_ptr->domain == IMC_DOMAIN_NEST) {
-		mutex_unlock(&nest_init_lock);
+		mutex_lock(&nest_init_lock);
 		if (nest_pmus == 1) {
 			cpuhp_remove_state(CPUHP_AP_PERF_POWERPC_NEST_IMC_ONLINE);
 			kfree(nest_imc_refc);