Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] iput() cleanup (was Re: [patch 12/16] fix race between writeback and unlink) | From | Chris Mason <> | Date | 03 Jun 2002 15:49:24 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 15:34, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2002, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > Now that is kinda neat, calling it with the inode lock held lets me move > > some things out of reiserfs_file_release which need i_sem, and move them > > into a less expensive drop_inode call without grabbing the semaphore. > > CAREFUL! > > If you make real per-FS use of this, and aren't just using the standard > ones, you need to be very very careful. In particular, you get called with > the inode lock held, but you would have to drop the lock yourself after > having removed the inode from the hash chains etc. I'd like people to > avoid playing too many games in this area, the locking and the exact > semantics of "drop_inode" are rather nasty.
Right, I don't want too much in there. There are a few things I need to do when I know nobody else is messing with the inode, and I'm using i_sem to provide that now. put_inode doesn't do what I need because knfsd might iget his way into the mess.
I'm talking a very limited set of operations followed by calling the generic functions. I might not do it at all if I can't get them safe when called under the spin lock.
-chris
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |