[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANP1eJFCRmu704uZvP1EfBqU7-FdFbKZ3cnOH8+ZGtXDycy6kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:37:54 -0400
From: Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: "linux-cachefs@...hat.com" <linux-cachefs@...hat.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Shantanu Goel <sgoel01@...oo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] FS-Cache: Reduce cookie ref count if submit fails.
Any suggestion what's the right thing to do here David? I'd like to
re-spin and re-submit the patches.
- M
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com> wrote:
> The honest answer is I don't know if it know if needs to be unlocked
> before or after. I saw a same pattern with unlocking order inside of
> __fscache_attr_changed in the failure case.
>
> If this can be re-ordered I can take care of that in my next version I
> submit to you.
>
> - Milosz
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com> wrote:
>>
>>> + wake_cookie = __fscache_unuse_cookie(cookie);
>>> spin_unlock(&cookie->lock);
>>> + if (wake_cookie)
>>> + __fscache_wake_unused_cookie(cookie);
>>
>> Why do __fscache_unuse_cookie() with cookie->lock held?
>>
>> David
>
>
>
> --
> Milosz Tanski
> CTO
> 16 East 34th Street, 15th floor
> New York, NY 10016
>
> p: 646-253-9055
> e: milosz@...in.com
--
Milosz Tanski
CTO
16 East 34th Street, 15th floor
New York, NY 10016
p: 646-253-9055
e: milosz@...in.com
--
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