[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <507D25F5.3030001@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:16:37 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
CC: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] efivarfs: efivarfs_fill_super() ensure we clean up
correctly on error
Hi Andy,
>> If we break out of the loop on the second (and onwards) iteration,
>> won't we still have the other inodes and dentries remaining
>> allocated?
>
> As we calling this from the mount_single() wrapper:
>
> return mount_single(fs_type, flags, data, efivarfs_fill_super);
>
>
> which does this:
>
> struct dentry *mount_single(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
> int flags, void *data,
> int (*fill_super)(struct super_block *, void *, int))
> {
> [...]
> error = fill_super(s, data, flags & MS_SILENT ? 1 : 0);
> if (error) {
> deactivate_locked_super(s);
> return ERR_PTR(error);
> }
> [...]
>
> I am expecting us to get called back via deactivate_locked_super(),
> which calls sb->kill_sb() which is:
>
> static void efivarfs_kill_sb(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> kill_litter_super(sb);
> efivarfs_sb = NULL;
> }
>
> Which I believe will clean them up.
Awesome, thanks for that. Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
Cheers,
Jeremy Kerr
--
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