[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB0E466.9050905@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:54:30 +0200
From: Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
<phcoder@...il.com>
To: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
CC: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 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 14.05.2012 12:40, 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?
My first version used mutex. But then Jan suggested that since the
critical section is very short and doesn't contain any instructions
which might sleep, it's better for performance to use a spin lock.
--
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (295 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists