Thanks Al... I was going to try and evaluate that patch next
week, now all I have to do is test it <g> ...
-Mike
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That, AFAICS, fixes a real bug. Applied, and it needs Cc:stable as well.
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/orangefs/super.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> --- a/fs/orangefs/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/orangefs/super.c
>> @@ -115,6 +115,13 @@ static struct inode *orangefs_alloc_inod
>> return &orangefs_inode->vfs_inode;
>> }
>>
>> +static void orangefs_i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
>> +{
>> + struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
>> + struct orangefs_inode_s *orangefs_inode = ORANGEFS_I(inode);
>> + kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, orangefs_inode);
>> +}
>> +
>> static void orangefs_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> {
>> struct orangefs_inode_s *orangefs_inode = ORANGEFS_I(inode);
>> @@ -123,7 +130,7 @@ static void orangefs_destroy_inode(struc
>> "%s: deallocated %p destroying inode %pU\n",
>> __func__, orangefs_inode, get_khandle_from_ino(inode));
>>
>> - kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, orangefs_inode);
>> + call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, orangefs_i_callback);
>> }
>>
>> /*
>>
>>
