On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 02:17:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > jffs2_clear_inode(inode);
> >
> > into
> >
> > make_bad_inode(inode);
> > iput(inode);
> >
> > and that changelog doesn't really explain it either ("fix leak"? Ok, I can
> > see the iput() fixing the leak - but you also did that jffs2_clear_inode()
> > change, and that has no explanation what-so-ever.
>
> The final iput() calls ->clear_inode() (jffs2_clear_inode in case of jffs2)
> and the inode has just been created, with no other in-core references
> existing. Basically, that call was the only part of (required) iput() that
> _was_ done there ;-)
>
> FWIW, what's happening around ->clear_inode()/->delete_inode()/->drop_inode()
> is a mess. This leak got found when I'd been looking through that crap;
> results of sanitizing are in #evict_inode (vfs-2.6.git). I'm going to shift
> that into for-next tomorrow, assuming it survives local beating. For now
> I've just pulled jffs2-fixes in it...
Ok, a changelog like that would have been a good thing. Not that I usually
care, but now that I'm in careful mode, I do end up looking at things like
this, and a good changelog would have goen m uch further in convincing me
that the "goto fail" changes really were just about fixing the leak, and
that there wasn't some other change hidden in the same commit.
Linus
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
