[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150714104922.GC24369@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:49:22 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] change get_super_thawed() to use sb_start/end_write()
On Mon 13-07-15 23:25:48, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Preparation. get_super_thawed() can do sb_start/end_write() with
> the same effect, we are going to kill sb_writers->wait_unfrozen.
> ---
> fs/super.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index 928c20f..5ea0edd 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -621,8 +621,8 @@ struct super_block *get_super_thawed(struct block_device *bdev)
> if (!s || s->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN)
> return s;
> up_read(&s->s_umount);
> - wait_event(s->s_writers.wait_unfrozen,
> - s->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN);
> + sb_start_write(s);
> + sb_end_intwrite(s);
This is definitely buggy - you need to start and end freeze protection at
the same level...
Honza
> put_super(s);
> }
> }
> --
> 1.5.5.1
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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