On 7/4/22 10:10 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 09:13:44AM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
On 7/1/22 6:38 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
I don't know here... I think it might be better to just expect that when
this function returns an error that the folio has already been unlocked.
Doing it this way will mean that you will lock and unlock the folio a
second time for no reason.
Maybe something like this instead?
diff --git a/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c b/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
index 42f892c5712e..8ae7b0f4c909 100644
--- a/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
+++ b/fs/netfs/buffered_read.c
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ int netfs_write_begin(struct netfs_inode *ctx,
trace_netfs_failure(NULL, NULL, ret, netfs_fail_check_write_begin);
if (ret == -EAGAIN)
goto retry;
- goto error;
+ goto error_unlocked;
}
}
@@ -418,6 +418,7 @@ int netfs_write_begin(struct netfs_inode *ctx,
error:
folio_unlock(folio);
folio_put(folio);
+error_unlocked:
_leave(" = %d", ret);
return ret;
}
Then the "afs" won't work correctly:
377 static int afs_check_write_begin(struct file *file, loff_t pos, unsigned
len,
378 struct folio *folio, void **_fsdata)
379 {
380 struct afs_vnode *vnode = AFS_FS_I(file_inode(file));
381
382 return test_bit(AFS_VNODE_DELETED, &vnode->flags) ? -ESTALE : 0;
383 }
The "afs" does nothing with the folio lock.
It's OK to fix AFS too.
Okay, will fix it. Thanks!
-- Xiubo
--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
