[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1337763839.2225.11.camel@perseus.themaw.net>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:03:59 +0800
From: Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - fix get_next_positive_subdir()
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 15:30 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 15:22 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 19:53 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The locking for the list traversal in get_next_positive_subdir() is
> > > > wrong, so fix it.
> > >
> > > As an explanation, this kind of thing is totally useless. It doesn't
> > > actually give any information at all. It's like saying "change
> > > locking"
> > >
> > > What happened, and why? Why is the new nested spinlock ok and won't
> > > deadlock against other nested users? Wazzup?
> >
> > It's good that you questioned this Linus.
> >
> > Looking again at dput() I think the traversal still isn't quite right.
> >
> > For a start the test for d_count 0 or positive and hashed can never be
>
> Correction, that second check is actually !(positive and hashed) in the
> code.
>
> > true since the point of the change was to take the d_lock of the
> > d_subdirs dentry for the traversal.
That's not right, ignore this.
> >
> > I'll need to work on this some more, thanks.
> > Ian
>
--
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