On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 03:29:47AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:21:24PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Before replacing the inode hash locking with a more scalable > > mechanism, factor the removal of the inode from the hashes rather > > than open coding it in several places. > > > > Based on a patch originally from Nick Piggin. > > Looks good as an equal transformation, but what code is doing with > remove_inode_hash looks really buggy. It's doing a re-hash of a live > inode which is probably causing enough problems by itself, but should > at least have locks for it. Anyway, that's something for the coda folks > to sort out. Known problem; nobody got around to fixing it. But if that's going where I think it's going, the problem has just got nastier... We do need locking around there anyway; current use of BKL to protect lists in psdev stuff is not good. -- 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
