linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: optimize locking for end

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <0EF9455C-A950-43A6-8B01-9A5396AA575B@mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:30:45 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To:	Tao Ma <taoma.tm@...il.com>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: optimize locking for end_io extent conversion


On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:51 PM, Tao Ma wrote:

>>        if (!mutex_trylock(&inode->i_mutex)) {
> So here, we spin_lock first and then mutex_lock.
> But in  ext4_flush_completed_IO, we mutex_lock first and
> then spin_lock. Will lockdep complain about it?
> Other than that, the patch looks good to me.

It won't complain because it's a mutex_trylock(); so by definition it can't cause a deadlock.

-- 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