[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120514105318.GH5353@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:53:18 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
<phcoder@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix AFFS race condition.
On Mon 14-05-12 12:40:45, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> 2012/5/14 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>:
> > On Sun 13-05-12 15:44:33, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> >> AFFS code preallocates several blocks as an optimisation. Unfortunately
> >> it's not protected by lock so the same blocks may end up allocated twice.
> >> Here is a fix.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko <phcoder@...il.com>
> > The patch looks good to me now. Thanks! You can add:
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> >
> > Al, will you merge this patch through your tree? AFFS does not seem to
> > have a maintainer so you are a default fallback...
> >
> > Honza
> >
>
> I don't know the AFFS code, so only a question. Instead to use a spin
> lock, I think we can use a simple mutex. Or is the spin lock
> mandatory?
So what would be an advantage of a mutex? Spinlock *is* the simple locking
variant...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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