lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Deep look into VFS


On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Martin Dalecki wrote:

> Unless I'm compleatly misguided the lock on the superblock
> should entierly prevent the race described inside the header comment
> and we should be able to delete clear_inode from this function.

Huh? We drop that lock before the return from this function. So if you
move clear_inode() after the return, you lose that protections.

What's more, you can't more that lock_super()/unlock_super() into iput()
itself - you need it _not_ taken in the beginning of ext2_delete_inode()
and you don't want it for quite a few filesystems.

Nothing VFS-specific here, just a bog-standard "you lose protection of
semaphore once you call up()"...

> PS. Deleting clear_inode() would help to simplify the
> delete_inode parameters quite a significant bit, as
> well as deleting the tail union in struct inode - that's the goal.

Again, huh?

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.082 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site