| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100930061640.GZ5665@dastard> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:16:40 +1000 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] fs: icache lock lru/writeback lists On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:52:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. Yes, they are, but I don't know exactly why it is so trylock happy. I'll try to dig out the reason for it and: > I'd suggest that each such site have a comment explaining why we're > resorting to this. At least get this far. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com -- 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