[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101015175247.GA6737@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:52:47 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/18] fs: icache remove inode_lock
Thanks for trying to get back to a technical discussion. Maybe we
can just move the technical comments to direct replies to the patches
and leave this not very helpful subthread behind?
> rcu_read_lock();
> list_for_each_entry(inode, list) {
> if (inode->blah ...) {
> spin_lock(&list_lock);
> if (unlikely(list_empty(&inode->i_list)))
> continue;
> do_something(inode);
> }
> }
But that't not what we do for icache. For the validity checking during
lookup we check the I_FREEING bit, which is modified under i_lock
and can be read without any locking. So everything is just fine
when moving on to RCU locking.
--
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