On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:37:16PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > I was going to Ack the patch but I wondering if we should wait a little > > while and perhaps (probably) include the wake up call change as well. > Hmm, those would be separate patches? An interesting thing is that the code itself supposes the wake up calls from autofs_wait_release() and autofs_catatonic_mode() to be related in some way (see autofs_wait fragment): /* * wq->name.name is NULL iff the lock is already released * or the mount has been made catatonic. */ wait_event_killable(wq->queue, wq->name.name == NULL); status = wq->status; It seems 'the lock is already released' refers to autofs_wait_release() as there is no alternative except the call to catatonic function where wq->name.name is NULL. So apparently the wake up calls should be the same (although I don't know if autofs_catatonic_mode has some different behaviour in such case, but probably it doesn't differ here). It's also strange that autofs_kill_sb() calls autofs_catatonic_mode() and currently it just decrements the wait_ctr's and it is not clear to me where the waitqueues are eventually freed in such case. Only if autofs_wait_release() or autofs_wait() are called? I'm not sure whether they are definitely called after that or not. [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/autofs/msg01878.html > > In any case we need Al to accept it (cc'd). > > Hopefully Al will offer his opinion on the changes too. > It would be very nice if probably Al would make it more clear. At the moment I think that the leak issue should be fixed with the currenly discussed patch and the wake up call issue should be fixed like in [1], but perhaps I'm missing something.
