2008/5/20 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:18:14PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote:
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
>> + if (list_empty(&type->fs_supers) && type->init) {
>> + err = type->init();
>> + if (err) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>> + destroy_super(s);
>> + return ERR_PTR(err);
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + list_add(&s->s_instances, &type->fs_supers);
>> + mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
>> +
>> s->s_type = type;
>> strlcpy(s->s_id, type->name, sizeof(s->s_id));
>> list_add_tail(&s->s_list, &super_blocks);
>> - list_add(&s->s_instances, &type->fs_supers);
>> +
>> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>
> You can't take a mutex while holding a spinlock -- what if you had to
> sleep to acquire the mutex?
>
> I imagine you also don't want to hold a spinlock while calling the
> ->init or ->exit -- what if the fs wants to sleep in there (eg allocate
> memory with GFP_KERNEL).
>
> --
> Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
> "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
> operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
> a retrograde step."
>
Oh no! This is bad. I really need to devise some script to stress
test my code - and also make myself pay attention to what I'm doing.
Sorry for the noise, guys.
--
Tom Spink
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
