linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the lock protection region

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:48:09 +0800
From:	Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:	jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com
CC:	f2fs <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the
 lock protection region

Hi Kim,
On 11/20/2013 09:31 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:

> Hi Gu,
> 
> IMO, there is no reason to cover the list header by the lock.
> In any flows, sbi should have the header all the time.

Yes, you're right.

> What is your opinion?

Moving the list_head initialization into the lock protection region, so
that we can ignore the list change during the gap(initialization<-->use).
And on the other side, it can keep the code style uniform for better
maintenance.

Regards,
Gu

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 2013-11-19 (화), 18:03 +0800, Gu Zheng:
>> Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c |   15 ++++++++++-----
>>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> index f884589..1de70cc 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> @@ -511,8 +511,8 @@ void add_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>>  void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>>  {
>>  	struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_SB(inode->i_sb);
>> -	struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> -	struct list_head *this;
>> +
>> +	struct list_head *this, *head;
>>  
>>  	if (!S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
>>  		return;
>> @@ -523,6 +523,7 @@ void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>>  	list_for_each(this, head) {
>>  		struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>>  		entry = list_entry(this, struct dir_inode_entry, list);
>> @@ -544,11 +545,13 @@ void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>>  
>>  struct inode *check_dirty_dir_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t ino)
>>  {
>> -	struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> -	struct list_head *this;
>> +
>> +	struct list_head *this, *head;
>>  	struct inode *inode = NULL;
>>  
>>  	spin_lock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>> +
>> +	head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>>  	list_for_each(this, head) {
>>  		struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>>  		entry = list_entry(this, struct dir_inode_entry, list);
>> @@ -563,11 +566,13 @@ struct inode *check_dirty_dir_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t ino)
>>  
>>  void sync_dirty_dir_inodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>  {
>> -	struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> +	struct list_head *head;
>>  	struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>>  	struct inode *inode;
>>  retry:
>>  	spin_lock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>> +
>> +	head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>>  	if (list_empty(head)) {
>>  		spin_unlock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>>  		return;
> 


--
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/