[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130726144900.GA18876@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:49:00 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alexander Z Lam <azl@...gle.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: PATCH? debugfs_remove_recursive() must not rely on
list_empty(d_subdirs)
On 07/26, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/07/26 5:04), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > parent = dentry;
> > down:
> > mutex_lock(&parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(child, next, &parent->d_subdirs, d_u.d_child) {
>
> Perhaps, you can use list_for_each_entry_safe_continue() here, as below.
>
> parent = dentry;
> down:
> child = list_first_entry_or_null(&parent->d_subdirs,
> typeof(*child), d_u.d_child);
> mutex_lock(&parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
>
> restart:
> list_for_each_entry_safe_continue(child, next, &parent->d_subdirs, d_u.d_child) {
>
> > if (!debugfs_positive(child))
> > continue;
> >
> > /* XXX: simple_empty(child) instead ? */
> > if (!list_empty(&child->d_subdirs)) {
> > mutex_unlock(&parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > parent = child;
> > goto down;
> > }
> > up:
> > __debugfs_remove(child, parent);
> > }
>
> Then, you can avoid jumping into the loop, just restart it from
> parent as below.
Yes, but I'd prefer to jump into the loop. This is subjective, but looks
a bit more understandable to me.
Because "goto down/up" are actually "call/return", and "jump up" looks
like return-after-recursive-debugfs_remove_recursive-call.
However,
> if (child != dentry)
> goto restart;
>
> > mutex_unlock(&parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
Yes, I realized this right after I sent the email ;)
We can factor out the final ->d_parent/mutex_lock if we check
"child != dentry" instead of "parent != dentry".
I'll send the patch in a minute. Thanks.
Oleg.
--
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