linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/18] fs: split locking of inode writeback and LRU 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: <20101016162021.GE16861@infradead.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:20:21 -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 13/18] fs: split locking of inode writeback and LRU lists

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:57:13PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > That needs some documentation both in the changelog and in the code
> > I think.
> 
> This is another instance where the irregular i_lock locking is making
> these little subtleties to the locking. I think that is actually much
> worse for maintainence/complexity than a few trylocks which can be
> mostly removed with rcu anyway (which are obvious because of the well
> documented lock order).

Care to explain why?  The I_FREEING and co checks are how we do things
all over the icache for a long time.  They are perfectly easy to
understand concept.  What I asked Dave about is documenting why he
changed things here.

--
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/