Il 09/06/2012 02:28, Andrew Morton ha scritto:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:46:47 -0700 Linus Torvalds<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Of course, if you just mean having a VFS wrapper that does static void vfs_inode_kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep) { rcu_barrier(); kmem_cache_destroy(cachep); } then we could do that. Not much better than what Kirill's patch did, but at least we could have that comment in just one single place.That's conceptually what I meant. But it has the problem that new and out-of-tree filesystems might forget to do it. Which is why I suggest adding a kmem_cache* argument to unregister_filesystem() for this. It's a bit awkward, and the fs can pass in NULL if it knows what it's doing. But it's reliable. --
The call of rcu_barrier should be mandatory for the "unload fs module" problem, right? If the fs is compiled statically maybe we could avoid it, but (eventually) this kind of decision is per-fs, so this could be a clue that the call of rcu_barrier maybe is inside each fs not in VFS.
Marco -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ecryptfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
