[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130320134226.GF13294@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:42:26 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix ext4_evict_inode() racing against workqueue
processing code
On Wed 20-03-13 09:37:51, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 02:22:23PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > + if (work_pending(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_unwritten_work))
> > > + flush_work(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_unwritten_work);
> > > }
> > Won't it be more logical to use cancel_work_sync() here?
>
> Hmm.... yes, probably, but then ext4_ioend_wait() can only be safely
> used by ext4_evict_inode(). I'll make the change, but I'll also make
> a comment to this effect. (No one else is using it now, but if there
> was ever a need to use it while the inode was in use, using
> cancel_work_sync() would be highly dagernous/racy. That being said, I
> can't really think of a good use case other than evict_inode path, so
> it seems fine to make this change.)
Yeah, we can possibly rename the function or maybe even just inline it in
ext4_evict_inode?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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