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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:22:12 +0900
From:	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
To:	Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.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

Ok, got it.
Thanks, :)

2013-11-20 (수), 17:48 +0800, Gu Zheng:
> 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-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Jaegeuk Kim
Samsung

--
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