lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/4] NFS: release per-net clients lock before calling PipeFS dentries creation
27.02.2012 19:59, David Laight пишет:
>
>> spin_lock(&nn->nfs_client_lock);
>> - list_for_each_entry(clp,&nn->nfs_client_list, cl_share_link) {
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(clp, tmp,&nn->nfs_client_list,
> cl_share_link) {
>> if (clp->rpc_ops !=&nfs_v4_clientops)
>> continue;
>> + atomic_inc(&clp->cl_count);
>> + spin_unlock(&nn->nfs_client_lock);
>> error = __rpc_pipefs_event(clp, event, sb);
>> + nfs_put_client(clp);
>> if (error)
>> break;
>> + spin_lock(&nn->nfs_client_lock);
>> }
>> spin_unlock(&nn->nfs_client_lock);
>> return error;
>
> The locking doesn't look right if the loop breaks on error.
> (Same applied to patch v2 1/4)
>

Thanks for the catch. I'll fix this.

> Although list_fo_each_entry_safe() allows the current entry
> to be freed, I don't believe it allows the 'next' to be freed.
> I doubt there is protection against that happening.
>

We need to use safe macro, because client can be destroyed on nfs_put_client() call.
About "protection against ... the 'next' to be freed" - I dont' think, that we
need any protection against it. This will be done under nfs_client_lock, and
current entry list pointers will be updated properly.

> Do you need to use an atomic_inc() for cl_count.
> I'd guess the nfs_client_lock is usually held?
>

Sorry, I don't understand this question.

--
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
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: 2012-02-27 17:23    [W:0.033 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site