[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201711240004.GGE82352.MVFtFLHOOOFSQJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:04:23 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: david@...morbit.com, jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: handle shrinker registration failure insget_userns
Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hopefully less screwed version. But as I've said I am not really
> > familiar with the code and do not feel competent to change it so please
> > be very careful here. I've moved the shrinker registration to
> > alloc_super which turned out to be simpler.
>
> I don't get it. Why the hell do we need all that PITA in the first place?
> Just make sget_userns() end with
> if (unlikely(regsiter_shrinker(&s->s_shrink) != 0)) {
> deactivate_locked_super(s);
> s = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> }
> return s;
> and be done with that. All there is to it...
>
Doesn't deactivate_locked_super() call unregister_shrinker() ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists