[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160120202059.GH27825@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:20:59 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] futex: Remove requirement for lock_page in
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Bueso wrote:
>> > +
>> > + /* Should be impossible but lets be paranoid for now */
>> > + BUG_ON(inode->i_mapping != mapping);
>>
>> Hmm, do we want to transform this into an if and do rcu unlock and then just
>> call BUG()? I't doesn't matter at this point _anyway_, but it would be the
>> right
>> thing to do, no?
>
>The better solution is to err out gracefully.
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(inode->i_mapping != mapping) {
> err = -EFAULT;
> rcu_read_unlock();
> goto out;
> }
>
>Hmm?
Ok, Linus would probably like that as well. If we're going this way,
we also need to release inode reference, before the rcu unlock.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists