[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AF4DAEC.5010503@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:26:52 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/13] sysfs: Protect sysfs_refresh_inode with inode mutex.
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Sidenote: Hmmm... Originally, sysfs completely depended on vfs locking
but with sysfs_dirent separation, the tree structure itself and some
attributes went under the protection of sysfs_mutex while leaving more
vfs oriented fields under vfs locking. This patchset makes sysfs
lazier so it can't depend on any vfs layer locking. I think you've
converted all necessary places while removing dependency on
dentry/inode from update operations but it might be a good idea to do
a audit pass over how fields are being protected now.
Thanks for your patience.
--
tejun
--
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