lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: test12-pre5


On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Ok, this contains one of the fixes for the dirty inode buffer list (the
> > other fix is pending, simply because I still want to understand why it
> > would be needed at all). Al?
>
> See previous posting. BTW, -pre5 doesn't do the right thing in clear_inode().
>
> Scenario: bh of indirect block is busy (whatever reason, flush_dirty_buffers(),
> anything that can bump ->b_count for a while). ext2_truncate() frees the
> thing and does bforget(). bh is left on the inode's list. Woops...

So? Why wouldn't clear_inode() get rid of it?

> The minimal fix would be to make clear_inode() empty the list. IMO it's
> worse than preventing the freed stuff from being on that list...

This _is_ what clear_inode() does in pre5 (and in pre4, for that matter):

void clear_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
if (!list_empty(&inode->i_dirty_buffers))
invalidate_inode_buffers(inode);
...

which I find perfectly readable. And should mean that no dirty buffers
should be associated with the inode any more. ext2 calls clear_inode()
from ext2_free_inode(), and as far as I can tell the only thing that can
happen after that is that the inode is still scheduled for write-out
(which explains how the bug you fixed would cause a dirty block to be
attached to the inode _after_ we did a clear_inode() on it).

Or are you thinking of something else?

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:51    [W:0.374 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site