Hi,
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 07:36 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:11:32PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > @@ -241,6 +242,11 @@ void __destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> > BUG_ON(inode_has_buffers(inode));
> > security_inode_free(inode);
> > fsnotify_inode_delete(inode);
> > + if (!inode->i_nlink) {
> > + WARN_ON(atomic_long_read(&inode->i_sb->s_remove_count) == 0);
> > + atomic_long_dec(&inode->i_sb->s_remove_count);
> > + }
>
> Umm... That relies on ->destroy_inode() doing nothing stupid; granted,
> all work on actual file removal should've been done in ->evice_inode()
> leaving only (RCU'd) freeing of in-core, but there are odd ones that
> do strange things in ->destroy_inode() and I'm not sure that it's not
> a Yet Another Remount Race(tm). OTOH, it's clearly not worse than what
> we used to have; just something to keep in mind for future work.
>
GFS2 is one of those cases. The issue is that when we enter
->evict_inode() with i_nlink 0, we do not know whether any other node
still has the inode open. If it does, then we do not deallocate it in
->evict_inode() but instead just forget about it, just as if i_nlink was
> 0 leaving the remaining opener(s) to do the deallocation later,
Steve.
--
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
