[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110105155816.GD2072@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 07:58:16 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Cc: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.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 Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 02:55:51PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-01-04 22:00, 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. 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:
>
> It doesn't matter if you do it in there of after the fact, since the
> "lock" (RCU) is being held across the call. See my original suggestion
> here:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/17/275
Ok, that's fine, just do it without adding that kref function and I have
no objection :)
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