[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANGUGtCN3oJDv9Ja5KJ8bBz+HG5_ppeAMrmb34aUpmEH00E8nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:06:11 +0200
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: 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.
2012/5/14 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>:
> 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
> --
None actually, only style, but if there are performance consideration
already done, ok it was only a question. :)
Marco
--
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