[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m13a4uypxk.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:51:03 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/13] sysfs: Protect sysfs_refresh_inode with inode mutex.
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
>>
>> In general everything that writes to vfs inodes holds the
>> inode mutex, so hold the inode mutex over sysfs_refresh_inode.
>> The sysfs data structures don't need this but it looks like the
>> vfs might.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
>
> Oh right so pls disregard my last reply to patch 9 :)
I also checked and nfs has the same basic structure and does take the
inode mutex on these paths, inside of nfs_refresh_inode which is
called from __nfs_revalidate_inode.
So it is definitely the consistent thing to do.
Eric
--
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