lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] Introduce filesystem type tracking
2008/5/20 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:18:14PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote:
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
>> + if (list_empty(&type->fs_supers) && type->init) {
>> + err = type->init();
>> + if (err) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>> + destroy_super(s);
>> + return ERR_PTR(err);
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + list_add(&s->s_instances, &type->fs_supers);
>> + mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
>> +
>> s->s_type = type;
>> strlcpy(s->s_id, type->name, sizeof(s->s_id));
>> list_add_tail(&s->s_list, &super_blocks);
>> - list_add(&s->s_instances, &type->fs_supers);
>> +
>> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>
> You can't take a mutex while holding a spinlock -- what if you had to
> sleep to acquire the mutex?
>
> I imagine you also don't want to hold a spinlock while calling the
> ->init or ->exit -- what if the fs wants to sleep in there (eg allocate
> memory with GFP_KERNEL).
>
> --
> Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
> "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
> operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
> a retrograde step."
>

Oh no! This is bad. I really need to devise some script to stress
test my code - and also make myself pay attention to what I'm doing.
Sorry for the noise, guys.

--
Tom Spink


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-20 17:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans