Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:03:47 +0100 (BST) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH ?] iprune_sem |
| |
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Frederick, Fabian wrote: > > Someone could tell me why we don't use iprune_sem in get_new_inode > like this ? > http://fabian.unixtech.be/kernel/inode060803.diff
1. iprune_sem was introduced for a specific umount versus prune race, see the comment upon it: no bearing on get_new_inode whatsoever. 2. How would downing a semaphore just before the spin_lock, upping it just after the spin_unlock, serve any purpose? 3. If it were useful, it should be upped on the exceptional path too. 4. Don't change "locked inode" comment to "inode unlocked": I_LOCK is set. 5. But worst of all, you remove the whole point of the old = find_inode.
I think you're trying to say, a semaphore (not placed where you have it) could be used to prevent two tasks from allocating the same inode at the same time. Yes, but would single-thread inode allocation disastrously: much more efficient for both to try and check - as get_new_inode does.
Hugh
- 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/
| |