lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 14/18] fs: Protect inode->i_state with th einode->i_lock
    On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 07:04:28PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
    > > > inode->i_ino = ++last_ino;
    > > > inode->i_state = 0;
    > > > + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode);
    > > > spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
    > > > }
    > > > return inode;
    > >
    > > What's the point in doing this move?
    >
    > hmmmm, let me think on that....
    >
    > >
    > > > @@ -953,8 +966,8 @@ static struct inode *get_new_inode(struct super_block *sb,
    > > > if (set(inode, data))
    > > > goto set_failed;
    > > >
    > > > - __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode);
    > > > inode->i_state = I_NEW;
    > > > + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode);
    > >
    > > Same here.
    >
    > Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set
    > before the inode was added to various lists and potentially
    > accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that
    > effect, right?

    In addition to the comment get_new_inode_fast also needs the same
    treatment. I also wonder if we need to set I_NEW in new_inode and
    then later call unlock_new_inode on it. It's not on the hash at that
    point, but it is on the per-sbi list which we use for a few things.
    With current callers it seems safe, but the whole thing also is rather
    fragile. Better left for another patch, though.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-09 10:09    [W:0.020 / U:62.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site