linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/18] fs: icache remove inode

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]

Date:	Fri, 8 Oct 2010 04:03:19 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/18] fs: icache remove inode_lock

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:21:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> 
> All the functionality that the inode_lock protected has now been
> wrapped up in new independent locks and/or functionality. Hence the
> inode_lock does not serve a purpose any longer and hence can now be
> removed.

Might be worth mentioning this also updates the locking / lock order
documenation all over the place.

> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ alloc_inode:
>  destroy_inode:
>  dirty_inode:				(must not sleep)
>  write_inode:
> -drop_inode:				!!!inode_lock!!!
> +drop_inode:				!!!i_lock, sb_inode_list_lock!!!

sb_inode_list_lock now is sb->s_inodes_lock, this also applies in a few
other places.


> +[mandatory]
> +	inode_lock is gone, replaced by fine grained locks. See fs/inode.c
> +for details of what locks to replace inode_lock with in order to protect
> +particular things. Most of the time, a filesystem only needs ->i_lock, which
> +protects *all* the inode state and its membership on lists that was
> +previously protected with inode_lock.

Which list membership does i_lock protect?

> --- a/fs/notify/inode_mark.c
> +++ b/fs/notify/inode_mark.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> -#include <linux/writeback.h> /* for inode_lock */
> +#include <linux/writeback.h>

Do we still need writeback.h here?

> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
>  #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
>  #include <linux/capability.h>
>  #include <linux/quotaops.h>
> -#include <linux/writeback.h> /* for inode_lock, oddly enough.. */
> +#include <linux/writeback.h>

Same here.

Otherwise looks good,


Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
--
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/