Hi, On 2017/10/28 21:58, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, Hou Tao wrote: > >> Remove the global epmutex from ep_free() and eventpoll_release_file(). >> In the later patches, we will add locks with a smaller granularity >> to serve the same purposes of epmutex. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/eventpoll.c | 4 ---- >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c >> index 2fabd19..26ab0c5 100644 >> --- a/fs/eventpoll.c >> +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c >> @@ -835,7 +835,6 @@ static void ep_free(struct eventpoll *ep) >> * anymore. The only hit might come from eventpoll_release_file() but >> * holding "epmutex" is sufficient here. >> */ > ^^ > What about this comment (and the equivalent one in eventpoll_release_file()? > >> - mutex_lock(&epmutex); > Thanks for your reminder. I will fix the related comments in a v1 patchset. > ...even if you fix it in a later patch, this patch breaks bisection. Now > we just race between ep_free() and eventpoll_release_file(). This patch > should be folded in, no? Yes, the patchset should be squashed into one patch, however it will be difficult to explain the purpose of these modifications, so I break them into little pieces, and hoped that these little patches can explain the reason why the modification is needed in a cleaner way. It also will be fixed in v1 patch. Regards, Tao > Thanks, > Davidlohr > > . >
