[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101016161914.GD16861@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:19:14 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] fs: Protect inode->i_state with th einode->i_lock
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set
> > > before the inode was added to various lists and potentially
> > > accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that
> > > effect, right?
> >
> > Yes, please.
>
> This is due to i_lock not covering all the icache state of the inode,
> so you have to make these synchronisation changes like this.
>
> I much prefer such proposals to go at the end of my series, where I
> will probably nack them (and use rcu instead if the remaining trylocks
> are such a big issue).
To get back to the context - what it changes is setting up i_state =
I_NEW before adding the inode to the sb-list and the hash. Making
sure objects are fully set up before adding to a list is always a good
idea, and really has nothing to do with RCU.
--
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