[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimg+sVCAE17jLE9oz301oruVZbdbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:19:01 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
William Irwin <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: hugetlb locking bug.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 16:57 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>> Because it doesn't use iget or unlock_new_inode, but rather calls
>> directly into new_inode(). It and other filesystems not using
>> unlock_new_inode will need a local copy of that logic.
>
> Is there a sane reason they do their own magic, and thus need a copy of
> the logic, instead of using the generic code that already has it?
Hmm. That all seems to be just an oversight.
Does this trivial one-liner work?
(Warning: whitespace damage and TOTALLY UNTESTED)
Linus
---
fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index b9eeb1cd03ff..a14a6e03ec33 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_inode(struct
super_block *sb, uid_t uid,
inode->i_op = &page_symlink_inode_operations;
break;
}
+ unlock_new_inode(inode);
}
return inode;
}
--
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