Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> But there's the second race I describe making it possible >> for new IO to be created after io_destroy() has waited for all IO to >> finish... > > Can't that be solved by introducing memory barriers around the accesses > to ->dead? Upon further consideration, I don't think so. Given the options, I think adding the synchronize rcu to the io_destroy path is the best way forward. You're already waiting for a bunch of queued I/O to finish, so there is no guarantee that you're going to finish that call quickly. Cheers, Jeff -- 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
