[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fcb92d78-fc5a-8f51-8a1b-75fd878cf8a1@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:06:00 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>, xiang@...nel.org,
chao@...nel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
zhujia.zj@...edance.com
Cc: huyue2@...lpad.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] erofs: relinquish volume with mutex held
On 2023/2/9 13:18, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> Relinquish fscache volume with mutex held. Otherwise if a new domain is
> registered when the old domain with the same name gets removed from the
> list but not relinquished yet, fscache may complain the collision.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@...edance.com>
Do we need to backport this to old kernels?
IOWs, whether "Fixes:" tag is needed?
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
> ---
> fs/erofs/fscache.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/erofs/fscache.c b/fs/erofs/fscache.c
> index 2f5930e177cc..a6f030966147 100644
> --- a/fs/erofs/fscache.c
> +++ b/fs/erofs/fscache.c
> @@ -328,8 +328,8 @@ static void erofs_fscache_domain_put(struct erofs_domain *domain)
> kern_unmount(erofs_pseudo_mnt);
> erofs_pseudo_mnt = NULL;
> }
> - mutex_unlock(&erofs_domain_list_lock);
> fscache_relinquish_volume(domain->volume, NULL, false);
> + mutex_unlock(&erofs_domain_list_lock);
> kfree(domain->domain_id);
> kfree(domain);
> return;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists