[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090423191934.GW1926@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:19:35 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
LFSDEV <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5 -tip] cifs: umount_begin BKL pushdown
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:12:02PM +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> @@ -525,18 +526,26 @@ static void cifs_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb)
> struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
> struct cifsTconInfo *tcon;
>
> - if (cifs_sb == NULL)
> + lock_kernel();
> +
> + if (cifs_sb == NULL) {
> + unlock_kernel();
> return;
OK, what are you doing here? Either the BKL protects the sb here,
and you need to lock_kernel() before calling CIFS_SB(sb), or the BKL
protects nothing, and the lock_kernel() should be moved down below the
test for cifs_sb.
> + }
>
> tcon = cifs_sb->tcon;
> - if (tcon == NULL)
> + if (tcon == NULL) {
> + unlock_kernel();
> return;
> + }
Likewise -- does cifs rely on the BKL to protect the 'tcon' or not?
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists