linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/17] fs: icache lock lru/writeback lists

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

Message-Id: <20100929215240.feb118f3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:52:40 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] fs: icache lock lru/writeback lists

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:38 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:

> The inode moves between different lists protected by the inode_lock. Introduce
> a new lock that protects all of the lists (dirty, unused, in use, etc) that the
> inode will move around as it changes state. As this is mostly a list for
> protecting the writeback lists, name it wb_inode_list_lock and nest all the
> list manipulations in this lock inside the current inode_lock scope.

All those spin_trylock()s are real ugly.  They're unexplained in the
changelog and unexplained in code comments.

I'd suggest that each such site have a comment explaining why we're
resorting to this.

--
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/