Le jeudi 30 septembre 2010 Ã 07:36 +0200, Eric Dumazet a Ãcrit :
> Le mercredi 29 septembre 2010 Ã 21:53 -0700, Andrew Morton a Ãcrit :
> > > +static unsigned int last_ino_get(void)
> > > +{
> > > + static unsigned int last_ino;
> > > +
> > > + return ++last_ino;
> > > +}
> >
> > This is racy with CONFIG_PREEMPT on some architectures, I suspect. I'd
> > suggest conversion to atomic_t with, of course, an explanatory comment ;)
> >
>
In fact this code was OK when I submitted my original patch back in
2008, since it replaced fs/inode.c
inode->i_ino = ++last_ino;
And this was protected by a surrounding spinlock
(spin_lock(&inode_lock); at that time)
Even after Nick patches, preemption is still disabled (by two
spinlocks... spin_lock(&sb_inode_list_lock); /
spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);)
So patch 15/17 seems good to me, I re-sign it as-is ;)
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>
If it happens preemption is re-enabled later (with future patches), we
might need to change last_ino_get() too.
Thanks !
--
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
