[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130910235349.GG13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:53:49 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' tree
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:37:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > It's not that bad, actually; I think the variant I've pushed right now
> > (vfs.git#for-next, head at f5e1dd34561e0fb06400b378d595198918833021) should
> > be doing the right thing. It ought to cover everything in your branch
> > in -next from "fs: bump inode and dentry counters to long" on to the
> > end of queue.
>
> >From a quick look, this looks pretty broken:
>
> if (list_lru_add(&dentry->d_sb->s_dentry_lru, &dentry->d_lru))
> this_cpu_inc(nr_dentry_unused);
> dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_LRU_LIST;
>
> because if that list_lru_add() can fail, then we shouldn't set the
> DCACHE_LRU_LIST bit either.
list_lru_add() can fail if it's already on the list; leaving the counter
alone should've been conditional on that, setting the flag - no. Said
that, it probably should be WARN_ON(!...); this_cpu_inc(); ... |= ...;
--
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