On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:34:13PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:35:55PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * This must be called after __d_drop_unions() without holding any locks.
> > > > + * Note: The dentry might still be reachable via a lookup but at that time it
> > > > + * already a negative dentry. Otherwise it would be unhashed. The union_mount
> > > > + * structure itself is still reachable through mnt->mnt_unions (which we
> > > > + * protect against with union_lock).
> > > > + *
> > > > + * We were worried about a recursive dput() call through:
> > > > + *
> > > > + * dput()->d_kill()->shrink_d_unions()->union_put()->dput()
> > > > + *
> > > > + * But this path can only be reached if the dentry is unhashed when we
> > > > + * enter the first dput(), and it can only be unhashed if it was
> > > > + * rmdir()'d, and d_delete() calls shrink_d_unions() for us.
> > > > + */
> > > > +void shrink_d_unions(struct dentry *dentry)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct union_mount *this, *next;
> > > > +
> > > > +repeat:
> > > > + spin_lock(&union_lock);
> > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(this, next, &dentry->d_unions, u_unions) {
> > > > + BUG_ON(!hlist_unhashed(&this->u_hash));
> > > > + BUG_ON(!hlist_unhashed(&this->u_rhash));
> > > > + list_del(&this->u_unions);
> > > > + this->u_next.dentry->d_unionized--;
> > > > + spin_unlock(&union_lock);
> > > > + union_put(this);
> > > > + goto repeat;
> > >
> > > This loop is weird. That list_for_each_entry_safe is just used to
> > > initialize "this", since it unconditionally restarts from the
> > > beginning.
> >
> > This loop is definitely weird, but the alternative is so simple
> > (replace the goto with a spin_lock()) that I suspect Jan had a reason
> > to write it this way. Jan, do you recall?
>
> Something like the following is equivalent but more readable:
>
> struct list_head *head = &dentry->d_unions;
>
> spin_lock(&union_lock);
> while (!list_empty(head) {
> this = list_entry(head->next, struct union_mount, u_unions);
> ...
> spin_unlock(&union_lock);
> union_put(this);
> spin_lock(&union_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock(&union_lock);
Okay, I will rewrite it along those lines. Thanks,
-VAL
--
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
