[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090429215344.GD24749@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:53:44 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ext3 data=guarded v5
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 03:41:29PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> I think my latest patch has this nailed down without the mutex.
> Basically it checks i_nlink with super lock held and then calls
> ext3_orphan_del. If we race with unlink, we'll either find the new
> nlink count and skip the orphan del or unlink will come in after us and
> add the orphan back.
Can you make sure you mark any lock_super()'s with a comment saying
what it's protecting? Eventually I suspect we'll want to forward port
this to ext4, and I have a patch in the ext4 patch queue that I mean
to backport to ext3 which introduces an explicit i_orphan_lock mutex
and eliminates most of the calls to lock/unlock_super() in support of
a cleanup which Christoph is planning. So it'll make life easier if
you annotate any use of lock_super(), since it's going to be going
away in both ext3 and ext4 in the near future.
Thanks!!
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists