[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D247760.9050307@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:51:28 +0100
From: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: fix accounting bug on cross partition merges
On 01/04/2011 10:00 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:55:13PM +0100, Jerome Marchand wrote:
>> Also add a refcount to struct hd_struct to keep the partition in
>> memory as long as users exist. We use kref_test_and_get() to ensure
>> we don't add a reference to a partition which is going away.
>
> No, don't do this, use a kref correctly and no such function should be
> needed.
>
>> + } else {
>> + part = disk_map_sector_rcu(rq->rq_disk, blk_rq_pos(rq));
>
> That is the function that should properly increment the reference count
> on the object.
Agreed.
> If the object is "being removed", then it will return
> NULL and you need to check that. Do that and you do not need to add:
The object is actually removed in a rcu callback function. We could
certainly add a flag to hd_struct, set by the release function, to
indicate disk_map_sector_rcu() that the partition is being removed, but
why not use the refcount instead?
Thanks,
Jerome
>
>> + if (!kref_test_and_get(&part->ref)) {
>
> At all.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
--
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